{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00000","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects warranty, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects exhibit, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.9 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":0,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00001","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":1,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00002","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects impairment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.7 states that the administrator must review segment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.7 states that the administrator must review segment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.6 states that the review committee must review forecast evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":2,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00003","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on namespace data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects latency, 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 callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects namespace, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on namespace data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":3,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00004","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.3 states that the contract manager must review policy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects vendor, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects retention, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":4,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00005","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.6 states that the review committee must review analysis evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on methodology 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 methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.1 states that the service owner must review replication evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects hypothesis, the service owner.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":5,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00006","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on indemnity 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 schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects agreement, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects breach, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects indemnity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":6,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00007","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.6 states that the operations lead must review diagnosis evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects member, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":7,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00008","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects forecast, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects forecast, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects portfolio, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":8,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00009","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.3 states that the review committee must review replica evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.1 states that the compliance officer must review deployment evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.8 states that the operations lead must review replica evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":9,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00010","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on classification data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.8 states that the administrator must review policy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.8 states that the administrator must review attestation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":10,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00011","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects metric, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects dataset,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":11,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00012","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects assignment, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on remedy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects liability, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":12,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00013","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects dosage, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects appeal, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.5 states that the service owner must review benefit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects benefit, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.1 states that the review committee must review provider evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":13,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00014","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.4 states that the operations lead must review asset evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects asset, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects expense, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.8 states that the service owner must review quarter evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":14,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00015","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.2 states that the review committee must review cache evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects replica, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.9 states that the operations lead must review callback evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects timeout, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects throughput, the service owner must notify.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":15,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00016","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.9 states that the service owner must review risk evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects vendor, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects policy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects evidence, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":16,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00017","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects hypothesis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":17,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00018","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects counterparty, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.7 states that the compliance officer must review jurisdiction evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.6 states that the administrator must review liability evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":18,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00019","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 15.4 states that the operations lead must review claims evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":19,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00020","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects expense, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.2 states that the service owner must review liability evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.9 states that the service owner must review currency evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":20,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00021","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.7 states that the compliance officer must review configuration evidence before the escalation 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects callback, 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 replica threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":21,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00022","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.2 states that the review committee must review attestation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. 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 risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects policy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":22,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00023","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects metric, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. 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 ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":23,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00024","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects termination, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects obligation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects agreement, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.9 states that the service owner must review exhibit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects warranty, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":24,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00025","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.5 states that the compliance officer must review clinical evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects benefit, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on coverage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects therapy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":25,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00026","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on segment 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 margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.5 states that the contract manager must review guidance evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":26,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00027","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects endpoint, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.4 states that the service owner must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.7 states that the service owner must review runtime evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects namespace, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":27,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00028","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.6 states that the contract manager must review.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":28,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00029","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects hypothesis, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects experiment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.2 states that the service owner must review sample evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":29,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00030","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of schedule, 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.7 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects exhibit, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.4 states that the contract manager must review remedy evidence before the certification date.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":30,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00031","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects network, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.6 states that the operations lead must review benefit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.6 states that the service owner must review authorization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.3 states that the administrator must review coverage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":31,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00032","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects amortization, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on asset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.1 states that the compliance officer must review amortization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":32,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00033","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on timeout 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 schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects cache, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.9 states that the operations lead must review serializer evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.2 states that the contract manager must review runtime evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":33,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00034","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.9 states that the review committee must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":34,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00035","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on observation 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 hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.9 states that the administrator must review replication evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review methodology evidence before the implementation date.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":35,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00036","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects counterparty, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects assignment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.1 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the implementation date and document the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":36,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00037","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects dosage, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects benefit, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.6 states that the contract manager must review claims evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.9 states that the operations lead must review network evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":37,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00038","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects impairment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.6 states that the service owner must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects amortization, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":38,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00039","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.9 states that the service owner must review deployment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.6 states that the compliance officer must review namespace evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects timeout, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":39,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00040","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.9 states that the operations lead must review review evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects exception, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.3 states that the compliance officer must.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":40,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00041","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.7 states that the administrator must review finding evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on finding 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 finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects experiment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":41,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00042","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.3 states that the compliance officer must review exhibit evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.3 states that the operations lead must review remedy evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":42,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00043","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects therapy, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":43,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00044","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.9 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":44,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00045","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.7 states that the service owner must review schema evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects timeout, 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 configuration threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":45,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00046","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on classification 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 evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects audit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects approval, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.7 states that the operations lead must review attestation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":46,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00047","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects metric, 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 dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.4 states that the operations lead must review model evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects sample, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.9 states that the review committee must review sample evidence before the escalation.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":47,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00048","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects assignment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects governing, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects governing, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on warranty data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":48,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00049","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.3 states that the service owner must review appeal 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 exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.2 states that the administrator must review clinical evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects screening, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":49,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00050","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.3 states that the review committee must review liquidity evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.7 states that the compliance officer must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":50,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00051","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on namespace data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects throughput, 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 schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":51,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00052","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects classification, 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 encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.2 states that the contract manager must review attestation evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects risk, the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":52,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00053","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.2 states that the review committee must review metric evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects finding, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cohort, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.5 states that the service owner must review analysis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":53,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00054","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on remedy 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 obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.3 states that the compliance officer must review confidential evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects assignment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":54,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00055","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects exclusion, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects appeal, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects referral, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects authorization, 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 coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":55,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00056","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.6 states that the service owner must review impairment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on impairment data when the source is.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":56,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00057","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects replica, 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 serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects throughput, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":57,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00058","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.4 states that the service owner must review control evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on incident 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects audit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects vendor, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":58,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00059","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.8 states that the contract manager must review variance evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.1 states that the contract manager must review metric evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects analysis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.5 states that the contract manager must review ablation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects analysis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":59,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00060","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.2 states that the contract manager must review termination evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.3 states that the compliance officer must review confidential evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects breach, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on remedy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects assignment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects counterparty,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":60,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00061","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects coverage, 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 exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects therapy, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.2 states that the service owner must review screening evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.4 states that the operations lead must review exclusion evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":61,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00062","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects forecast, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.4 states that the review committee must review amortization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":62,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00063","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.8 states that the administrator must review configuration evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.3 states that the administrator must review serializer evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer 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 replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects schema, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.6 states that.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":63,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00064","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.4 states that the contract manager must review attestation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects encryption, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on retention data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":64,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00065","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.9 states that the operations lead must review finding evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":65,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00066","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.2 states that the operations lead must review notice evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.1 states that the administrator must review assignment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":66,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00067","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects dosage, 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 authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects diagnosis, 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 coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects clinical, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":67,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00068","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on cashflow 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 guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.8 states that the compliance officer must review revenue evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects impairment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects portfolio, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.8 states that the compliance officer must review margin evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.7 states that the contract manager must review dividend evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":68,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00069","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects worker, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":69,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00070","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects access, 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 attestation 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 attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.6 states that the administrator must review retention evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.1 states that the service owner must review evidence evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.7 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":70,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00071","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cohort, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.5 states that the review committee must review model evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.5 states that the operations lead must review ablation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cohort, the review.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":71,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00072","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on notice 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 termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on notice 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. The service owner may rely on jurisdiction 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 remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":72,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00073","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.3 states that the compliance officer must review exclusion evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects protocol, 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 therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.8 states that the operations lead must review authorization evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on benefit 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 clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":73,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00074","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.4 states that the compliance officer must review revenue evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.5 states that the review committee must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":74,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00075","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects replica, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects callback, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects worker, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects timeout, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":75,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00076","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.5 states that the administrator must review attestation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects retention, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.7 states that the contract manager must review monitoring evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects incident, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":76,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00077","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects experiment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects replication, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects methodology, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects sample, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.8 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":77,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00078","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.2 states that the service owner must review counterparty evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.1 states that the contract manager must review breach evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects schedule, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":78,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00079","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.5 states that the compliance officer must review provider evidence before the submission 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects authorization, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects provider, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":79,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00080","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.1 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.3 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.6 states that the contract manager must review cashflow evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":80,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00081","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects serializer, 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 runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":81,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00082","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.1 states that the service owner must review classification evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects vendor, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on classification data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects classification, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.2 states that the review committee must review classification evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on attestation 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 risk threshold, and any dependency.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":82,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00083","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects appendix, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.5 states that the operations lead must review observation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on appendix.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":83,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00084","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.3 states that the administrator must review confidential evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects counterparty, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.6 states that the review committee must review jurisdiction evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":84,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00085","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. 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 provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on exclusion 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 appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.4 states that the operations lead must review provider evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.5 states that the review committee must review member evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":85,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00086","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent expense 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 procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.6 states that the contract manager must review forecast evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.4 states that the review committee must review liquidity evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects forecast, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.1 states that the review committee must review revenue evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on asset data when.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":86,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00087","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects endpoint, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, 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. Section 15.4 states that the contract manager must review cache evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects timeout, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects endpoint, the operations lead must.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":87,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00088","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects attestation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.6 states that the review committee must review control evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":88,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00089","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects cohort, the compliance officer 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":89,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00090","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.8 states that the compliance officer must review warranty evidence before the submission 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.3 states that the contract manager must review indemnity evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":90,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00091","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects coverage, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.8 states that the service owner must review provider evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects protocol, 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 clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects member, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":91,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00092","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects margin, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.8 states that the operations lead must review expense evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on impairment 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 segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on liability 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 currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":92,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00093","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.4 states that the service owner must review cache evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.3 states that the administrator must review permission evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on permission 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 replica threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":93,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00094","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.4 states that the service owner must review audit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects risk, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on monitoring data when the source is.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":94,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00095","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.9 states that the service owner must review dataset evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects replication, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.3 states that the contract manager must review replication evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.2 states that the review committee must review variance evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.5 states that the compliance officer must review ablation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":95,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00096","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects assignment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.1 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on schedule 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 termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on notice data.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":96,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00097","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable protocol threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects clinical, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects network, 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 dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects appeal, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":97,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00098","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.5 states that the contract manager must review impairment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.4 states that the compliance officer must review impairment evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.8 states that the review committee must review currency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":98,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00099","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.7 states that the operations lead must review cache evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 9.9 states that the compliance officer must review serializer evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects permission, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":99,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00100","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects classification, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.1 states that the administrator must review encryption evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.3 states that the compliance officer must review encryption evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of control, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects evidence, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.5 states that the operations lead must review encryption evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":100,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00101","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.6 states that the review committee must review model evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects metric, 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 observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.2 states that the contract manager must review sample evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on methodology data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":101,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00102","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.1 states that the review committee must review breach evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.4 states that the operations lead must review schedule evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on breach 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 counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects agreement, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects assignment,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":102,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00103","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects authorization, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects screening, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects provider, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects therapy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on benefit data when.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":103,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00104","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.9 states that the compliance officer must review liquidity evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.9 states that the contract manager must review quarter evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects margin, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.6 states that the compliance officer must review cashflow evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":104,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00105","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects throughput, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.5 states that the administrator must review configuration evidence before the escalation 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. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.4 states that the compliance officer must review timeout evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.3 states that the administrator must review configuration evidence.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":105,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00106","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.8 states that the compliance officer must review monitoring evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification 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. The contract manager may rely on monitoring 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 incident threshold, and any dependency.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":106,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00107","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.5 states that the contract manager must review hypothesis evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.4 states that the review committee must review cohort evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.9 states that the administrator must review hypothesis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on experiment data when the source is.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":107,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00108","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of agreement, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects indemnity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects assignment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects obligation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.6 states that the compliance officer must review breach evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.9 states that the service owner must review counterparty evidence.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":108,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00109","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects authorization, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects clinical, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects therapy, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on authorization 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 exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.5 states that.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":109,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00110","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue 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. Section 12.4 states that the administrator must review amortization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.9 states that the operations lead must review asset evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects impairment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.9 states that the contract manager must review revenue evidence.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":110,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00111","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of namespace, 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. If a material change affects timeout, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects runtime, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects migration, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.6 states that the administrator must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.1 states that the review committee must review timeout evidence.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":111,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00112","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.9 states that the operations lead must review review evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.3 states that the compliance officer must review risk evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on exception 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 exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.5 states that the contract manager must review evidence evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":112,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00113","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects variance, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dataset, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects hypothesis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":113,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00114","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects indemnity, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. 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 termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects notice, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.9 states that the contract manager must review counterparty evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":114,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00115","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects exclusion, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects therapy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects coverage, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":115,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00116","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency 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. Section 16.6 states that the service owner must review margin evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects cashflow, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects portfolio, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects expense, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":116,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00117","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects throughput, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects callback, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.5 states that the compliance officer must review migration evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.7 states that the contract manager must review deployment.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":117,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00118","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.2 states that the contract manager must review attestation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.3 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.7 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the submission date and document.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":118,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00119","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects appendix, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects appendix, the review committee 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects finding, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects appendix, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":119,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00120","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.5 states that the service owner must review agreement evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.7 states that the contract manager must review counterparty evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects agreement, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects remedy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":120,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00121","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects coverage, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects network, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.8 states that the service owner must review clinical evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":121,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00122","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects currency, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead 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 margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects impairment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.8 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":122,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00123","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 13.3 states that the compliance officer must review endpoint evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.5 states that the service owner must review callback evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects namespace, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects worker, the review committee.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":123,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00124","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.3 states that the operations lead must review encryption evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.3 states that the review committee must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects incident, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects policy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.2 states that the administrator must review classification evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":124,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00125","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on model 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 cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects ablation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.5 states that the service owner must review appendix evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.7.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":125,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00126","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.4 states that the administrator must review termination evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on remedy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.2 states that the operations lead must review termination evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on confidential 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 counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.6 states that the service owner must review termination evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":126,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00127","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects protocol, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects therapy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects clinical, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.3 states that the compliance officer must review coverage evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects claims, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.6 states that the contract manager must review protocol evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":127,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00128","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.3 states that the compliance officer must review portfolio evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects currency, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment 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.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":128,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00129","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects worker, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects timeout, 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 schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects deployment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer 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 schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":129,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00130","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on monitoring 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 approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects attestation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects risk, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":130,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00131","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects sample, 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. The service owner may rely on metric 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 analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.1 states that the compliance officer must review analysis evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":131,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00132","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects assignment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects remedy, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 11.8 states that the compliance officer must review obligation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.1 states that the review committee must review governing evidence.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":132,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00133","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects appeal, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.1 states that the review committee must review dosage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects referral, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.5 states that the review committee must review clinical evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.7 states that the compliance officer must review referral evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":133,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00134","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects currency, the contract manager 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. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on forecast data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":134,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00135","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.1 states that the review committee must review namespace evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.8 states that the operations lead must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.7 states that the operations lead must review cache evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of worker,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":135,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00136","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects encryption, 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 evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.5 states that the service owner must review classification evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on classification data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":136,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00137","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects metric, 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 replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 9.3 states that the operations lead must review replication evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects cohort, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects finding, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":137,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00138","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.5 states that the service owner must review counterparty evidence before the certification 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.3 states that the administrator must review schedule evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects warranty, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.7 states that the service owner must review warranty evidence.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":138,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00139","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects network, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.5 states that the contract manager must review therapy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects coverage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.8 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":139,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00140","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead 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 liquidity 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects guidance, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.9 states that the operations lead must review cashflow evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":140,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00141","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cache, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects configuration, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects endpoint, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":141,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00142","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of control, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects control, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of control, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.7 states that the service owner must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects encryption, 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..\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":142,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00143","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects replication, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects experiment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":143,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00144","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.2 states that the contract manager must review counterparty evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects obligation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.4 states that the administrator must review warranty evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":144,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00145","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.5 states that the service owner must review dosage evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.2 states that the contract manager must review claims evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":145,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00146","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects amortization, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects asset, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.9 states that the review committee must review asset evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":146,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00147","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on timeout 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 throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":147,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00148","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.7 states that the service owner must review review evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects encryption, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":148,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00149","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.2 states that the contract manager must review experiment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":149,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00150","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects counterparty, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":150,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00151","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects claims, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects coverage, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.2 states that the operations lead must review claims evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.9 states that the compliance officer must review appeal evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects provider, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":151,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00152","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue 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.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":152,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00153","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects timeout, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects serializer, 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 cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.6 states that the operations lead must review cache evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects timeout, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.1 states that the review committee must review endpoint evidence before the escalation date.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":153,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00154","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.1 states that the contract manager must review retention evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.7 states that the compliance officer must review retention evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":154,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00155","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.4 states that the review committee must review experiment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":155,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00156","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of agreement, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.1 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":156,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00157","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.4 states that the contract manager must review claims evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review dosage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":157,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00158","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.7 states that the service owner must review liquidity evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on impairment data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":158,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00159","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 12.5 states that the service owner must review configuration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects runtime, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.4 states that the compliance officer must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":159,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00160","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.1 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects vendor, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold,.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":160,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00161","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.4 states that the review committee must review cohort evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects metric, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.9 states that the review committee must review cohort evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":161,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00162","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.6 states that the review committee must review exhibit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects indemnity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.5 states that the operations lead must review remedy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":162,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00163","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 8.9 states that the compliance officer must review protocol evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects claims, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects authorization, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.9 states that the review committee must review authorization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":163,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00164","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.4 states that the review committee must review amortization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.8 states that the administrator must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects segment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":164,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00165","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.3 states that the compliance officer must review throughput evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects schema, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":165,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00166","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.5 states that the administrator must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.4 states that the administrator must review audit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects retention, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":166,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00167","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.3 states that the compliance officer must review sample evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.2 states that the compliance officer must review replication evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.3 states that the administrator must review sample evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":167,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00168","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects agreement, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on remedy 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 schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":168,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00169","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.6 states that the operations lead must review appeal evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.6 states that the service owner must review therapy evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on diagnosis.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":169,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00170","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.7 states that the operations lead must review asset evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.1 states that the service owner must review expense evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.9 states that the operations lead must review liability evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":170,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00171","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.5 states that the contract manager must review cache evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.6 states that the compliance officer must review migration evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects endpoint, the service.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":171,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00172","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.3 states that the review committee must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.8 states that the contract manager must review attestation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.3 states that the service owner must review approval evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":172,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00173","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects finding, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects variance, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.9 states that the compliance officer must review hypothesis evidence before the certification date and document the.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":173,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00174","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects schedule, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.4 states that the compliance officer must review confidential evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects confidential, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":174,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00175","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects appeal, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.3 states that the administrator must review protocol evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.6 states that the service owner must review dosage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects network, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":175,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00176","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects liability, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects currency, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment 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.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":176,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00177","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.2 states that the service owner must review cache evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects migration, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cache, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.7 states that the administrator must review cache evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.1 states that the review committee must review deployment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":177,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00178","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on risk 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects access, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects risk, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.8 states that the operations lead must review monitoring evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":178,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00179","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects metric, 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 dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects ablation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review experiment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects appendix, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects analysis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":179,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00180","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects exhibit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of agreement, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.2 states that the contract manager must review breach evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":180,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00181","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects screening, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.5 states that the administrator must review benefit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on coverage 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 benefit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects appeal, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":181,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00182","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.6 states that the service owner must review currency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects segment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects quarter, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":182,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00183","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":183,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00184","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects retention, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the service owner must review approval evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.9 states that the service owner must review evidence evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":184,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00185","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects metric, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.8 states that the operations lead must review experiment evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.2 states that the service owner must review variance evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":185,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00186","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.9 states that the operations lead must review breach evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects governing, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.3 states that the operations lead must review assignment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects breach, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":186,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00187","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.8 states that the compliance officer must review coverage evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects authorization, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects claims, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on diagnosis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":187,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00188","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects margin, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.3 states that the review committee must review asset evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.6 states that the contract manager must review revenue evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.3 states that the contract manager must review revenue evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on forecast 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 liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":188,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00189","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects timeout, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects replica, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects configuration, 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 callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":189,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00190","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects classification, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.3 states that the operations lead must review evidence evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":190,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00191","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects methodology, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.7 states that the compliance officer must review observation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on experiment 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 methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.1 states that the administrator must review ablation evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":191,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00192","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects breach, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.3 states that the operations lead must review indemnity evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.1 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects agreement, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":192,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00193","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable benefit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.7 states that the compliance officer must review provider evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects coverage, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dosage, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on protocol data.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":193,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00194","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 9.7 states that the service owner must review asset evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects portfolio, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":194,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00195","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects serializer, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects deployment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.5 states that the review committee must review migration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":195,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00196","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.3 states that the review committee must review vendor evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects risk, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption 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. If a material change affects review, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects control, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":196,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00197","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects finding, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.7 states that the administrator must review sample evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":197,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00198","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.5 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the renewal 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. Section 16.4 states that the contract manager must review agreement evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable warranty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects remedy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects governing, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on remedy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":198,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00199","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.6 states that the operations lead must review authorization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable protocol 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. If a material change affects protocol, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on network data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":199,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00200","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.4 states that the operations lead must review forecast evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner 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 impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.7 states that the operations lead must review guidance evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer 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 portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":200,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00201","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.3 states that the compliance officer must review endpoint evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.6 states that the service owner must review timeout evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects endpoint, 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 latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of cache,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":201,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00202","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.7 states that the compliance officer must review vendor evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects control, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.1 states that the administrator must review monitoring evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects evidence, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception 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. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":202,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00203","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 13.3 states that the administrator must review baseline evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects ablation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, 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. The service owner may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":203,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00204","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable warranty 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. The review committee may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.5 states that the compliance officer must review remedy evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.3 states that the contract manager must review agreement evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects termination, 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 counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.3 states that the review committee must review assignment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":204,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00205","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.3 states that the compliance officer must review member evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects clinical, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.5 states that the operations lead must review protocol evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.8 states that the contract manager must.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":205,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00206","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.5 states that the operations lead must review margin evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects quarter, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.8 states that the compliance officer must review margin evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.3 states that the compliance officer must review segment evidence.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":206,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00207","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.2 states that the compliance officer must review replica evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on timeout data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.7 states that the administrator must review schema evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.5 states that the administrator must review throughput evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.6 states that the operations lead must review permission evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":207,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00208","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.8 states that the administrator must review control evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.6 states that the compliance officer must review exception evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.6 states that the operations lead must review policy evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":208,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00209","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects observation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects hypothesis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.1 states that the service owner must review analysis evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects baseline, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":209,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00210","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects confidential, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects notice, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.1 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.9 states that the administrator must review remedy evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":210,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00211","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects coverage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.2 states that the administrator must review dosage evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects benefit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.8 states that the administrator must review dosage evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects appeal, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":211,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00212","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.6 states that the service owner must review impairment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liquidity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects guidance, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on margin 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,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":212,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00213","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on worker 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 replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects worker, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects timeout,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":213,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00214","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects retention, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.8 states that the review committee must review exception evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.3 states that the service owner must review policy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects review, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects policy, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":214,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00215","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 12.6 states that the review committee must review hypothesis evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on methodology 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 hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects analysis, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":215,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00216","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.6 states that the operations lead must review liability evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.1 states that the review committee must review remedy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.6 states that the review committee must review governing evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.8 states that the contract manager must review governing evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":216,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00217","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects coverage, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.9 states that the review committee must review screening evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects provider, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable protocol threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on appeal data when.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":217,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00218","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects forecast, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects margin, 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 guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.4 states that the compliance officer must review revenue evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":218,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00219","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.1 states that the compliance officer must review cache evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects configuration, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects configuration, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.5 states that the compliance officer must review timeout evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.8 states that the review committee must review configuration.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":219,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00220","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.9 states that the administrator must review risk evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on attestation 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 evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects retention, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects policy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":220,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00221","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.4 states that the contract manager must review cohort evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.4 states that the service owner must review baseline evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.7 states that the service owner must review dataset evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.5 states that the compliance officer must review analysis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":221,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00222","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.4 states that the review committee must review confidential evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.9 states that the administrator must review indemnity evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.6 states that the contract manager must review notice evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on jurisdiction 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.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":222,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00223","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.2 states that the service owner must review screening evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.5 states that the operations lead must review protocol evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.3 states that the administrator must review coverage evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":223,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00224","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects amortization, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.5 states that the compliance officer must review segment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.6 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":224,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00225","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects namespace, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.9 states that the service owner must review runtime evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects timeout, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.6 states that the operations lead must review endpoint evidence.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":225,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00226","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects exception, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects control, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects vendor, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects audit, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of incident,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":226,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00227","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.9 states that the review committee must review cohort evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects dataset, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on model 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 observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.4 states that the contract manager must review.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":227,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00228","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.8 states that the contract manager must review warranty evidence before the escalation 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects exhibit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.9 states that the contract manager must review schedule evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 12.9 states that the review committee must review jurisdiction evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.7 states that the review committee must.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":228,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00229","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.4 states that the operations lead must review appeal evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects authorization, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects claims, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.5 states that the operations lead must review clinical evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":229,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00230","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects liability, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.8 states that the administrator must review quarter evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.3 states that the service owner must review quarter evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":230,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00231","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects replica, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects configuration, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":231,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00232","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.6 states that the compliance officer must review attestation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on audit 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 classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":232,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00233","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.3 states that the administrator must review dataset evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.1 states that the compliance officer must review analysis evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":233,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00234","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of agreement, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.9 states that the compliance officer must review confidential evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects notice, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":234,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00235","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.9 states that the operations lead must review provider evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects referral, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":235,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00236","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.8 states that the compliance officer must review expense evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.2 states that the operations lead must review amortization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects segment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":236,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00237","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.1 states that the administrator must review permission 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects configuration, 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 timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":237,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00238","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects monitoring, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.9 states that the compliance officer must review monitoring evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects incident, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.1 states that the administrator must review classification evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects control, the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":238,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00239","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects observation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":239,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00240","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.1 states that the review committee must review governing evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.7 states that the service owner must review remedy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects notice, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.8 states that the contract manager must review counterparty evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects counterparty, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":240,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00241","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.1 states that the operations lead must review exclusion evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on provider 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 screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.9 states that the administrator must review provider evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exclusion, the contract manager.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":241,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00242","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on guidance 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 segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.4 states that the service owner must review liquidity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects liability, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":242,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00243","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.6 states that the administrator must review endpoint evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.7 states that the service owner must review endpoint evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.5 states that the service owner must review migration evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":243,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00244","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on exception 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 classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects approval, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.9 states that the contract manager must review vendor evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":244,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00245","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects sample, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects sample, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on replication 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 metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on cohort data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":245,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00246","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects obligation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.2 states that the operations lead must review notice evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects confidential, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.7 states that the compliance officer must review remedy evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.9 states that the administrator must review governing evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":246,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00247","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects appeal, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis 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 service owner may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects coverage, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.8 states that the review committee must review protocol evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":247,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00248","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.3 states that the service owner must review guidance evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.9 states that the operations lead must review guidance evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects segment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects segment, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.9 states that the service owner must review dividend evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":248,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00249","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects deployment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.8 states that the administrator must review cache evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects deployment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.2 states that the review committee must review throughput evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":249,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00250","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects access, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on classification data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.6 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.5 states that the administrator must review vendor evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":250,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00251","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects dataset, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":251,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00252","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 9.1 states that the operations lead must review obligation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.2 states that the contract manager must review notice evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects remedy, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":252,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00253","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects referral, 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 appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.7 states that the administrator must review screening evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects referral, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":253,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00254","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects expense, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.8 states that the contract manager must review guidance evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects currency, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.9 states that the administrator must review impairment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":254,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00255","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.4 states that the administrator must review runtime evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects runtime, 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 callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects timeout, 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 callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.9 states that the operations lead must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":255,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00256","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.4 states that the contract manager must review monitoring evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":256,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00257","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects observation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.3 states that the operations lead must review dataset evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.7 states that the administrator must review finding evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects variance, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.3 states that the service owner must review analysis evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":257,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00258","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.5 states that the administrator must review obligation evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects agreement, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":258,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00259","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable benefit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects network, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.4 states that the compliance officer must review authorization evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":259,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00260","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.5 states that the compliance officer must review dividend evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects revenue, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.4 states that.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":260,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00261","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.4 states that the service owner must review callback evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":261,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00262","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects review, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects retention, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. 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 incident, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on access.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":262,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00263","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.3 states that the operations lead must review variance evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":263,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00264","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on governing 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 indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on remedy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects agreement, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":264,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00265","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.7 states that the contract manager must review authorization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects diagnosis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects referral, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects diagnosis, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.6 states that the service.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":265,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00266","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects margin, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.4 states that the contract manager must review expense evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on guidance 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 margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.2 states that the review committee must review liability evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":266,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00267","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 9.2 states that the service owner must review throughput evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects worker, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.4 states that the operations lead must review callback evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":267,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00268","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.7 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager 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 attestation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects access, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":268,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00269","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on dataset 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 methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.6 states that the operations lead must review model evidence before the submission date and document.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":269,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00270","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.4 states that the service owner must review governing evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.8 states that the compliance officer must review termination evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.4 states that the administrator must review exhibit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of agreement, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects breach, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":270,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00271","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects clinical, 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 benefit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects clinical, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":271,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00272","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.9 states that the contract manager must review dividend evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.8 states that the administrator must review forecast evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.5 states that the contract manager must review margin evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":272,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00273","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.3 states that the administrator must review worker evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.3 states that the contract manager must review timeout evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects permission, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on latency data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":273,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00274","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.9 states that the administrator must review approval evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on classification data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects classification, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.2 states that the administrator must review access evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.7 states that the administrator must review access evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.5 states that the compliance officer must.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":274,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00275","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects metric, 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 cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.5 states that the review committee must review appendix evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, 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 3.2 states that.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":275,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00276","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects agreement, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":276,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00277","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.6 states that the service owner must review appeal evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. 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 therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":277,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00278","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects liquidity, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects expense, 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 amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":278,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00279","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.8 states that the administrator must review runtime evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.6 states that the review committee must review callback evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.7 states that the contract manager must review endpoint evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":279,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00280","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.3 states that the contract manager must review access evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects vendor, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.9 states that the compliance officer must review attestation evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects audit, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":280,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00281","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.5 states that the contract manager must review methodology evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects ablation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.5 states that the compliance officer must review analysis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects finding, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":281,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00282","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on indemnity 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 counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.5 states that the contract manager must review governing evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on governing data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":282,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00283","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent appeal language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects claims, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects clinical, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects benefit, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":283,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00284","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on quarter 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 forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects portfolio, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":284,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00285","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects replica, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on cache 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 throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects worker, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review callback evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.3 states that the administrator.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":285,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00286","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 8.8 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects review, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects encryption, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":286,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00287","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.7 states that the operations lead must review baseline evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects model, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects analysis, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.4 states that the service owner must review hypothesis evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on model data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":287,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00288","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 8.2 states that the operations lead must review counterparty evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.7 states that the review committee must review notice evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects governing, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.6 states that the contract manager must review exhibit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.5 states that the review.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":288,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00289","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on network 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 screening 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. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on authorization 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 coverage threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":289,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00290","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects revenue, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.9 states that the compliance officer must review forecast evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on portfolio 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 margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.4 states that the compliance officer must review impairment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects segment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":290,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00291","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects endpoint, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.5 states that the review committee must review callback evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects namespace, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":291,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00292","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of exception, 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. The operations lead may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.5 states that the review committee must review classification evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects control, 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 retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on evidence data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":292,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00293","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.9 states that the operations lead must review ablation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects hypothesis, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":293,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00294","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.9 states that the review committee must review confidential evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.6 states that the contract manager must review obligation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":294,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00295","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.4 states that the operations lead must review network evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects referral, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects authorization, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects therapy, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":295,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00296","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cashflow, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.7 states that the compliance officer must review segment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.1 states that the compliance officer must review currency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.4 states that the service owner must review.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":296,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00297","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 10.4 states that the review committee must review namespace evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.1 states that the service owner must review permission evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.4 states that the service owner must review replica evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.7 states that the operations lead must review cache evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":297,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00298","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects audit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.8 states that the review committee must review approval evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.9 states that the administrator must review control evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects control, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.9 states that the review committee must review exception evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects vendor, the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":298,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00299","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects analysis, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects ablation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cohort, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects variance, the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":299,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00300","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects remedy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on termination 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 termination threshold, and any.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":300,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00301","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects coverage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects authorization, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.3 states that the service owner must review appeal evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects benefit, the administrator must.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":301,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00302","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 12.1 states that the review committee must review forecast evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects expense, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cashflow, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on currency 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 asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.5 states that the administrator must review expense.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":302,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00303","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects latency, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":303,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00304","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on audit 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 risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects control, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects review, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":304,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00305","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.5 states that the operations lead must review finding evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.5 states that the review committee must review methodology evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.9 states that the review committee must review appendix evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":305,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00306","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects obligation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.6 states that the service owner must review termination evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects schedule, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":306,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00307","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects coverage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on appeal 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 therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.6 states that the operations lead must review diagnosis evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects benefit, the contract manager must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":307,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00308","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects segment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects portfolio, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects currency, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cashflow, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":308,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00309","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.2 states that the service owner must review serializer evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects runtime, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.9 states that the compliance officer must review worker evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on cache data when.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":309,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00310","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects evidence, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.8 states that the compliance officer must review review evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on monitoring 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 classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.8 states that the service owner must review classification evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.6 states that the administrator must review access evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.3 states that the service owner must review evidence evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":310,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00311","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects appendix, 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 replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects finding, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":311,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00312","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects termination, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects notice, the review committee.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":312,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00313","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.4 states that the contract manager must review member evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects protocol, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on benefit 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 member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":313,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00314","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.9 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.4 states that the review committee must review portfolio evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":314,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00315","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 15.7 states that the review committee must review callback evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects namespace, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects deployment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":315,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00316","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects incident, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects access, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of control, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":316,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00317","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.4 states that the contract manager must review variance evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.3 states that the compliance officer must review methodology evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.5 states that the compliance officer must review finding evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":317,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00318","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects termination, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects termination, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review..\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":318,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00319","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.5 states that the contract manager must review protocol evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":319,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00320","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.6 states that the review committee must review amortization evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.9 states that the compliance officer must review asset evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects segment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects liability, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects revenue, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on liquidity data.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":320,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00321","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.9 states that the review committee must review namespace evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects latency, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.9 states that the compliance officer must review throughput evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects deployment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.5 states that the operations lead must review namespace evidence before the reporting 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. Section 6.7 states that the service.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":321,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00322","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects control, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.5 states that the operations lead must review review evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.9 states that the compliance officer must review vendor evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":322,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00323","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.8 states that the administrator must review appendix evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.3 states that the service owner must review hypothesis evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects hypothesis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":323,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00324","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects warranty, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.1 states that the contract manager must review obligation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.4 states that the compliance officer must review agreement evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":324,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00325","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.6 states that the administrator must review authorization evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects coverage, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on diagnosis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.7 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":325,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00326","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cashflow, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.2 states that the operations lead must review amortization evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects cashflow, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":326,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00327","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.1 states that the operations lead must review callback evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on timeout data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":327,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00328","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.5 states that the service owner must review classification evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.2 states that the service owner must review access evidence before the submission 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":328,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00329","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects replication, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cohort, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.6 states that the review committee must review finding evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects hypothesis, 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 metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome..\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":329,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00330","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 1.1 states that the compliance officer must review exhibit evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.4 states that the review committee must review termination evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":330,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00331","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects coverage, 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 dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable benefit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects authorization, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy..\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":331,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00332","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects portfolio, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.6 states that the contract manager must review margin evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":332,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00333","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects permission, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects schema, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.3 states that the review committee must review latency evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":333,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00334","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 13.5 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.1 states that the operations lead must review policy evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects classification, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on attestation 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 classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":334,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00335","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects cohort, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.1 states that the contract manager must review methodology evidence before the escalation 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. If a material change affects appendix, 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 appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":335,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00336","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.3 states that the operations lead must review obligation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.1 states that the compliance officer must review jurisdiction evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.4 states that the contract manager must review counterparty evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on agreement.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":336,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00337","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.6 states that the compliance officer must review screening evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.8 states that the administrator must review authorization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects benefit, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":337,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00338","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.3 states that the compliance officer must review currency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects impairment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.6 states that the compliance officer must.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":338,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00339","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects serializer, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.4 states that the contract manager must review namespace evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on worker 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 runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.5 states that the compliance officer must review migration evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":339,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00340","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on approval 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects approval, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":340,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00341","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.4 states that the administrator must review cohort evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects baseline, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects appendix, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.3 states that the service owner must review variance evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":341,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00342","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.2 states that the operations lead must review counterparty evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.6 states that the compliance officer must review liability evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.9 states that the compliance officer must review warranty evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":342,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00343","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects dosage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.3 states that the compliance officer must review therapy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":343,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00344","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.8 states that the compliance officer must review segment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.5 states that the contract manager must review asset evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.5 states that the review committee must review impairment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, 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. If a material change affects revenue, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects guidance, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":344,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00345","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 12.8 states that the operations lead must review latency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects deployment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects timeout, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":345,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00346","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects review, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects access, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":346,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00347","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects replication, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":347,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00348","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects warranty, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on remedy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects indemnity, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects warranty, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.1 states that the service owner must review governing evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.6 states that the administrator must review liability evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":348,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00349","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on network 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 claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects provider, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.6 states that the administrator must review screening evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.3 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":349,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00350","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.6 states that the compliance officer must review liquidity evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects revenue, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects dividend, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.9 states that the operations lead must review asset evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":350,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00351","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects worker, 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 callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.9 states that the service owner must review replica evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects replica, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.5 states that the operations lead must review.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":351,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00352","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.2 states that the administrator must review audit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.8 states that the operations lead must review incident evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects vendor, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects incident, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":352,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00353","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects model, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on analysis 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 replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.5 states that the service owner must review variance evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.4 states that the contract manager must review sample evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":353,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00354","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects exhibit, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects breach, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.8 states that the compliance officer must review notice evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.4 states that the service owner must review assignment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":354,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00355","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects provider, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects diagnosis, 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 network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects claims, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on referral 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 protocol 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. If a material change affects network, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":355,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00356","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects dividend, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.3 states that the operations lead must review currency evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects guidance, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects amortization, the administrator must notify stakeholders,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":356,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00357","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects permission, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":357,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00358","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects control, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":358,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00359","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.3 states that the compliance officer must review cohort evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":359,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00360","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects assignment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects schedule, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.5 states that the operations lead must review counterparty evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects schedule, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":360,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00361","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.7 states that the service owner must review protocol evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects screening, 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 therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":361,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00362","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on cashflow 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 quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":362,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00363","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.2 states that the contract manager must review replica evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects replica, 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 serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects worker, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.7 states that the operations lead must review callback evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":363,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00364","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.2 states that the service owner must review access evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":364,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00365","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.1 states that the operations lead must review finding evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.9 states that the operations lead must review metric evidence.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":365,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00366","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects agreement, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.1 states that the administrator must review remedy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.4 states that the compliance officer must review notice evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.3 states that the service owner must review termination evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":366,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00367","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects appeal, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.8 states that the compliance officer must review provider evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects provider, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects appeal, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on exclusion.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":367,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00368","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.9 states that the administrator must review guidance evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.6 states that the contract manager must review impairment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.4 states that the contract manager must review forecast evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.6.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":368,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00369","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.2 states that the review committee must review serializer evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.8 states that the compliance officer must review endpoint evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":369,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00370","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects review, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects incident, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.5 states that the operations lead must review vendor evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":370,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00371","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.8 states that the contract manager must review analysis evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects methodology, 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 baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects appendix, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":371,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00372","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.3 states that the service owner must review jurisdiction evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.1 states that the service owner must review assignment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.5 states that the service owner must review warranty evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.8 states that the compliance officer must review confidential evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":372,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00373","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects coverage, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects authorization, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects screening, the contract.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":373,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00374","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects liability, 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 currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects liquidity, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.8 states that the service owner must review cashflow evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":374,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00375","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects deployment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.3 states that the contract manager must review endpoint evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects replica, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects migration, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on throughput data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":375,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00376","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.8 states that the review committee must review classification evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects audit, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.9 states that the service owner must review control evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":376,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00377","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.5 states that the contract manager must review cohort evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.5 states that the compliance officer must review ablation evidence before the escalation date and.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":377,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00378","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.4 states that the operations lead must review exhibit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.9 states that the service owner must review notice evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects remedy, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on remedy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on jurisdiction data when.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":378,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00379","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.2 states that the compliance officer must review protocol evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects authorization, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.8 states that the operations lead must review coverage evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects authorization, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":379,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00380","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects forecast, 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 guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.1 states that the compliance officer must review revenue evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":380,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00381","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.2 states that the operations lead must review replica evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.5 states that the administrator must review timeout evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects permission, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":381,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00382","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects attestation, 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 classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.3 states that the administrator must review audit evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":382,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00383","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects sample, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects metric, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":383,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00384","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.8 states that the service owner must review counterparty evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.3 states that the contract manager must review termination evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.7 states that the compliance officer must review exhibit evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":384,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00385","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects exclusion, 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 clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.8 states that the administrator must review network evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects diagnosis, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.9 states that the administrator must review provider.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":385,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00386","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects dividend, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.1 states that the administrator must review expense evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.5 states that the administrator must review dividend evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.3 states that the contract manager must review currency evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of expense,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":386,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00387","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on namespace data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects permission, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cache, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":387,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00388","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.6 states that the review committee must review incident evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.7 states that the compliance officer must review encryption evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects monitoring, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.9 states that the contract manager must review approval evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.2 states that the service owner must review exception evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects approval,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":388,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00389","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.6 states that the compliance officer must review appendix evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.4 states that the operations lead must review ablation evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects experiment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.9 states that the operations lead must review variance evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":389,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00390","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects counterparty, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects governing, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects counterparty, 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 counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.3 states that the administrator must review obligation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects obligation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects liability, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on termination data.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":390,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00391","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review protocol evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects benefit, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.5 states that the operations lead must review screening evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":391,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00392","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on asset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.5 states that the review committee must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cashflow, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.2 states that the service owner must review portfolio evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":392,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00393","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.4 states that the review committee must review schema evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects schema, 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 callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects deployment, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":393,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00394","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects retention, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.8 states that the review committee must review access evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on encryption data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":394,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00395","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.5 states that the administrator must review finding evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on appendix 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 cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.4 states that the contract manager must review model evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":395,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00396","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects schedule, 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 schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.9 states that the contract manager must review termination evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects exhibit, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":396,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00397","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.8 states that the service owner must review network evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.9 states that the operations lead must review provider evidence before the reporting 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. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects network, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":397,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00398","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects currency, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects liquidity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects quarter, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":398,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00399","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.6 states that the compliance officer must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects migration, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects namespace, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.9 states that the service owner must review latency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on deployment.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":399,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00400","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects vendor, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.3 states that the administrator must review monitoring evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on attestation 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 policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects review, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.7 states that.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":400,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00401","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.7 states that the compliance officer must review appendix evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.4 states that the review committee must review methodology evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":401,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00402","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.7 states that the contract manager must review warranty evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects warranty, 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 assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable warranty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":402,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00403","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.5 states that the service owner must review therapy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appeal language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":403,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00404","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.1 states that the service owner must review asset evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.5 states that the review committee must review amortization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liability, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":404,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00405","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects throughput, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on replica 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 serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":405,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00406","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on audit 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 monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.9 states that the administrator must review retention evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead 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 vendor, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects vendor, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.9 states that the operations lead must review evidence evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":406,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00407","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects observation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.7 states that the contract manager must review dataset evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects model, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects observation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects hypothesis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.5 states that the operations lead must review metric evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":407,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00408","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects schedule, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects breach, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects indemnity, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":408,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00409","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.9 states that the operations lead must review appeal evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exclusion, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable authorization threshold, and any dependency.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":409,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00410","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects liquidity, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects revenue, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast 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. If a material change affects liquidity, 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 forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cashflow, the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":410,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00411","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.2 states that the review committee must review callback evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects worker, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects deployment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects deployment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":411,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00412","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.6 states that the administrator must review encryption evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.2 states that the review committee must review incident evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.9 states that the administrator must review retention evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":412,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00413","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.2 states that the review committee must review appendix evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.7 states that the operations lead must review appendix evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects variance, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.3 states that the operations lead must review cohort evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":413,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00414","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects assignment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects governing, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":414,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00415","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on coverage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.9 states that the compliance officer must review referral evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral 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. If a material change affects dosage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":415,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00416","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast 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 with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on dividend 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 currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":416,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00417","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on cache 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 runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects migration, 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 runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects schema, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":417,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00418","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.8 states that the review committee must review control evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.5 states that the service owner must review incident evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects audit, the administrator 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,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":418,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00419","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects observation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects observation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.7 states that the compliance officer must review sample evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":419,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00420","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects exhibit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects notice, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.1 states that the review committee must review exhibit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.4 states that the administrator must review confidential evidence before the renewal date and document.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":420,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00421","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects clinical, the contract manager 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. If a material change affects exclusion, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on clinical 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 member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on authorization data when the.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":421,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00422","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.5 states that the review committee must review impairment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer 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 margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects segment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects liquidity, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":422,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00423","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects deployment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects runtime, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":423,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00424","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects approval, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.9 states that the administrator must review encryption evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects exception, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects retention, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.6 states that the service owner must review incident evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":424,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00425","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects replication, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 14.3 states that the contract manager must review methodology evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects model, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on replication.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":425,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00426","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects termination, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects confidential, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects breach, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects remedy, 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 remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on jurisdiction data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":426,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00427","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.2 states that the review committee must review authorization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.8 states that the service owner must review dosage evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects screening, 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 appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":427,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00428","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.3 states that the contract manager must review cashflow evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects impairment, 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 currency 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. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects revenue, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":428,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00429","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.3 states that the contract manager must review namespace evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.5 states that the compliance officer must review deployment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on schema.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":429,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00430","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.4 states that the service owner must review vendor evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.3 states that the review committee must review audit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects monitoring, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 9.8 states that the compliance officer must review attestation evidence before the renewal date.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":430,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00431","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.3 states that the administrator must review cohort evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.8 states that the contract manager must review metric 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 contract manager may rely on sample 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 analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":431,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00432","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.7 states that the administrator must review breach evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects termination, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects warranty, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":432,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00433","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 15.2 states that the review committee must review benefit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects claims, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.7 states that the operations lead must review network evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects screening, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on coverage data when the source is.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":433,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00434","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.7 states that the operations lead must review segment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":434,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00435","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects serializer, the contract manager 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 6.8 states that the administrator must review permission evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":435,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00436","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects classification, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 15.2 states that the administrator must review policy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":436,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00437","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects model, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on dataset 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 variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects dataset, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":437,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00438","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects breach, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.7 states that the administrator must review schedule evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.9 states that the compliance officer must review warranty evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":438,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00439","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects exclusion, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.7 states that the administrator must review clinical evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.9 states that the contract manager must review clinical evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.6 states that the contract manager must review benefit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on screening data when.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":439,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00440","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects portfolio, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects quarter, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects liquidity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.9 states that the service owner must review dividend evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":440,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00441","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects latency, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee 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 configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.1 states that the service owner must review latency evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":441,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00442","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on classification data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects encryption, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":442,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00443","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects model, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.9 states that the service owner must review hypothesis evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects ablation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":443,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00444","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects warranty, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects schedule, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.8 states that the operations lead must review liability evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":444,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00445","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects member, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects claims, 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 authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on clinical 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 appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on member 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.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":445,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00446","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects revenue, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.3 states that the administrator must review cashflow evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.2 states that the operations lead must review quarter evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":446,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00447","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.1 states that the review committee must review configuration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects schema, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects throughput, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on worker 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 serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":447,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00448","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects classification, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.7 states that the review committee must review incident evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. 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 performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.9 states that.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":448,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00449","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects hypothesis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.1 states that the operations lead must review appendix evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.8 states that the compliance officer must review finding evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":449,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00450","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects obligation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":450,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00451","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects protocol, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects network, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.3 states that the service owner must review coverage evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.5 states that the compliance officer must review diagnosis evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects therapy, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":451,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00452","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.4 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.7 states that the compliance officer must review expense evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.2 states that the contract manager must review revenue evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity 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 9.6 states that the compliance officer must review liquidity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects quarter, the compliance officer.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":452,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00453","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 1.9 states that the contract manager must review deployment evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.3 states that the review committee must review replica evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects throughput, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on endpoint 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 worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects latency, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":453,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00454","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on monitoring 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects risk, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":454,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00455","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects dataset, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on ablation 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 cohort threshold, and any dependency that could.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":455,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00456","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 1.7 states that the administrator must review breach evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on liability 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 warranty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.7 states that the operations lead must review exhibit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.9 states that the administrator must review jurisdiction evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects exhibit, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects notice, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":456,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00457","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.8 states that the review committee must review benefit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects protocol, 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 coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.9 states that the compliance officer must review member evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects therapy, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on screening 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 therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":457,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00458","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 11.6 states that the administrator must review impairment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.3 states that the operations lead must review cashflow evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects margin, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer 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 portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.1 states that.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":458,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00459","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on timeout data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.2 states that the service owner must review configuration evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects runtime, 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 timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.5 states that the operations lead must review serializer evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review latency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":459,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00460","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring 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. Section 10.5 states that the compliance officer must review attestation evidence before the submission 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects access, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":460,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00461","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects cohort, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on experiment 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 appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.6 states that the review committee must review ablation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":461,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00462","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects breach, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects counterparty, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects indemnity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.8 states that the administrator must review termination evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":462,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00463","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.1 states that the service owner must review member evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.2 states that the review committee must review therapy evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.4 states that the service owner must review.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":463,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00464","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense 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. Section 18.5 states that the service owner must review margin evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":464,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00465","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects timeout, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.8 states that the administrator must review migration evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.4 states that the administrator must review throughput evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.5 states that the contract manager must review endpoint evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects worker, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":465,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00466","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.4 states that the administrator must review policy evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.6 states that the operations lead must review attestation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":466,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00467","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects hypothesis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.5 states that the compliance officer must review ablation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.3 states that the administrator must review methodology evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects baseline, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.5 states that the contract manager must review dataset evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects hypothesis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review..\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":467,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00468","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects obligation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.8 states that the compliance officer must review notice evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects warranty, 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 confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects counterparty, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":468,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00469","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.2 states that the compliance officer must review provider evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects authorization, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.3 states that the review committee must review referral evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects dosage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.6 states that the compliance officer must review provider evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":469,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00470","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects segment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.9 states that the review committee must review currency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":470,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00471","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects schema, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.7 states that the operations lead must review serializer evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.8 states that the service owner must review throughput evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects deployment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":471,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00472","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects audit, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.2 states that the administrator must review risk evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.5 states that the compliance officer must review audit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":472,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00473","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects observation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects metric, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":473,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00474","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 12.4 states that the review committee must review counterparty evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects confidential, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.5 states that the compliance officer must review schedule evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":474,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00475","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.7 states that the administrator must review appeal evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on diagnosis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects screening, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":475,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00476","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on quarter 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 segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects amortization, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.3 states that the service owner must review guidance evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":476,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00477","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects migration, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":477,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00478","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects classification, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.3 states that the contract manager must review audit evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.6 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on monitoring 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 incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":478,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00479","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on methodology 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 ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.4 states that the administrator must review cohort evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":479,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00480","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects governing, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.3 states that the administrator must review jurisdiction evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":480,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00481","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.7 states that the administrator must review diagnosis evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.8 states that the contract manager must review authorization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects benefit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.9 states that the compliance officer must review benefit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":481,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00482","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast 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 guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.4 states that the contract manager must review guidance evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects revenue, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects impairment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":482,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00483","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.2 states that the operations lead must review migration evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.6 states that the operations lead must review callback evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.4 states that the contract manager must review migration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":483,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00484","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.3 states that the operations lead must review vendor evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.6 states that the operations lead must review incident evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":484,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00485","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.9 states that the contract manager must review dataset evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects model, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dataset, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":485,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00486","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.2 states that the administrator must review breach evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":486,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00487","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.5 states that the compliance officer must review referral evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening 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. If a material change affects claims, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.1 states that the contract.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":487,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00488","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.2 states that the compliance officer must review portfolio evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.5 states that the compliance officer must review asset evidence.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":488,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00489","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects cache, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects configuration, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects permission, the contract manager must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":489,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00490","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 13.3 states that the review committee must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.1 states that the review committee must review audit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on audit 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 audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects access, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects approval, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.1 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":490,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00491","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, 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. Section 10.3 states that the administrator must review experiment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":491,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00492","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects confidential, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.5 states that the review committee must review counterparty evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.3 states that the service owner must review schedule evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":492,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00493","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.4 states that the review committee must review authorization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects protocol, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":493,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00494","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.2 states that the administrator must review cashflow evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":494,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00495","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.5 states that the compliance officer must review namespace evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.3 states that the operations lead must review cache evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects latency, the review committee must notify.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":495,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00496","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.9 states that the operations lead must review encryption evidence before the reporting 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. The operations lead may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects policy, 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 access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects attestation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":496,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00497","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects appendix, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.2 states that the administrator must review ablation evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":497,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00498","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects termination, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. 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 schedule, 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.9 states that the service owner must review remedy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects remedy, the service owner must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":498,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00499","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects provider, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dosage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.2 states that the operations lead must review benefit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.2 states that the service owner must review clinical.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":499,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00500","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects liability, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.5 states that the service owner must review asset evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.4 states that the compliance officer must review forecast evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects dividend, 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 quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":500,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00501","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.2 states that the administrator must review latency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":501,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00502","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exception, 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 encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects vendor, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.1.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":502,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00503","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects replication, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.5 states that the service owner must review metric evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.6 states that the service owner must review model evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":503,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00504","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects obligation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.8 states that the contract manager must review remedy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.3 states that the service owner must review liability evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.4 states that the contract manager must review warranty evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.2 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":504,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00505","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.6 states that the compliance officer must review exclusion evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on exclusion 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 screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects referral, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.6 states that the review committee must review dosage evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":505,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00506","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.5 states that the administrator must review margin evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.1 states that the contract manager must review asset evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on dividend 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 dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":506,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00507","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects configuration, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects permission, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects migration, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects throughput, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on worker data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":507,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00508","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects control, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects access, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects encryption, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":508,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00509","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects metric, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.7 states that the review committee must review hypothesis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects model, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":509,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00510","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":510,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00511","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.7 states that the service owner must review clinical evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.7 states that the contract manager must review coverage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.3 states that the operations lead must review authorization evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.8 states that the contract manager must review coverage evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":511,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00512","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects impairment, 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 revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects quarter, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":512,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00513","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.6 states that the operations lead must review latency evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects cache, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.9 states that the administrator must review worker evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner 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 migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects deployment, the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":513,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00514","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects attestation, 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 encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on risk 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 encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects encryption, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.3 states that the review committee must review classification evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":514,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00515","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 1.9 states that the review committee must review hypothesis evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.4 states that the administrator must review baseline evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.6 states that the operations lead must review methodology evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.6 states that the operations lead must review observation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on analysis 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 experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":515,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00516","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.8 states that the service owner must review confidential evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":516,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00517","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.8 states that the compliance officer must review authorization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.7 states that the service owner must review appeal evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.3 states that the service owner must review provider evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":517,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00518","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.5 states that the service owner must review forecast evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.9 states that the operations lead must review liability evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":518,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00519","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cache, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.5 states that the operations lead must review worker evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":519,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00520","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.5 states that the contract manager must review incident evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects vendor, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects exception, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects access, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":520,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00521","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects baseline, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects ablation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects observation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.8 states that the administrator must review variance evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.9 states that the administrator must review appendix evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":521,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00522","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.9 states that the administrator must review termination evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects indemnity, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects indemnity, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":522,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00523","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.6 states that the compliance officer must review member evidence before the implementation 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. If a material change affects network, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":523,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00524","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects portfolio, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.4 states that the compliance officer must review margin evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects forecast, 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 liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":524,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00525","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects permission, 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 latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":525,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00526","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects access, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.5 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on evidence data when the source is.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":526,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00527","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects experiment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":527,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00528","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable warranty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.1 states that the administrator must review breach evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.1 states that the compliance officer must review confidential evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.6 states that the operations lead must review exhibit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":528,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00529","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects exclusion, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.7 states that the administrator must review benefit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome..\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":529,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00530","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.4 states that the service owner must review portfolio evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects quarter, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.3 states that the service owner must review margin evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":530,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00531","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.1 states that the review committee must review endpoint evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.2 states that the compliance officer must review replica evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects serializer, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects configuration, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":531,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00532","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on access 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 attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects retention, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.7 states that the administrator must review review evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.4 states that the review committee must review.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":532,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00533","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects replication, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 14.7 states that the review committee must review analysis evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects model, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects analysis, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.4 states that the review committee must review cohort evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on experiment data.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":533,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00534","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.1 states that the administrator must review breach evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects exhibit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.8 states that the administrator must review termination evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.5 states that the compliance officer must review agreement evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects breach, the review.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":534,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00535","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.7 states that the contract manager must review exclusion evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.6 states that the administrator must review provider evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on diagnosis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects network, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.8 states that the review committee must review clinical evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":535,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00536","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects guidance, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.5 states that the administrator must review dividend evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects expense, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":536,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00537","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on worker 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 throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects schema, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on namespace data when the source is validated, the exception.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":537,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00538","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on risk 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects evidence, the contract manager 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. If a material change affects attestation, 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 exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on approval 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. If a material change affects.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":538,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00539","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.7 states that the contract manager must review metric evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.3 states that the operations lead must review sample evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects baseline, the contract manager.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":539,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00540","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on remedy 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 schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects exhibit, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":540,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00541","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.2 states that the operations lead must review exclusion evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on diagnosis 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 benefit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects therapy, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":541,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00542","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.2 states that the operations lead must review revenue evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects dividend, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects quarter, 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 portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.7 states that the review committee must review quarter evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":542,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00543","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.3 states that the operations lead must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, 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. If a material change affects schema, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects permission, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, 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. The.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":543,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00544","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.5 states that the operations lead must review approval evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects audit, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exception, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":544,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00545","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on replication 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 appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects ablation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.5 states that the review committee must review ablation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":545,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00546","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.9 states that the operations lead must review jurisdiction evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.7 states that the compliance officer must review schedule evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.7 states that the review committee must review remedy evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects agreement, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":546,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00547","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.1 states that the administrator must review screening evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on coverage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.8 states that the review committee must review authorization evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":547,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00548","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.6 states that the operations lead must review amortization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, 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. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects amortization, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":548,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00549","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects serializer, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects callback, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.4 states that the administrator must review endpoint evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.1 states that the contract manager must review worker evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of replica,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":549,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00550","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.8 states that the service owner must review incident evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects monitoring, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":550,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00551","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects appendix, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects dataset, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects ablation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on dataset 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 ablation 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. The procedure requires a comparison of variance,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":551,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00552","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects remedy, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects agreement, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects confidential, 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 assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.5 states that the operations lead must review schedule evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":552,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00553","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects coverage, 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 screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.3 states that the service owner must review provider evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.3 states that the review committee must review claims evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical 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. If a material change affects network, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":553,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00554","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects quarter, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.6 states that the administrator must review cashflow evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 11.6 states that the service owner must review revenue 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. The contract manager may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects expense, the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":554,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00555","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.9 states that the contract manager must review cache evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.6 states that the compliance officer must review endpoint evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":555,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00556","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on exception 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 policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.9 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.7 states that the review committee must review control evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.9 states that the operations lead must review retention evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":556,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00557","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects variance, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.3 states that the service owner must review dataset evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.9 states that the contract manager must review baseline evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.4.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":557,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00558","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.3 states that the contract manager must review assignment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.3 states that the administrator must review confidential evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.3 states that the review committee must review remedy evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects exhibit, 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 termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":558,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00559","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.7 states that the service owner must review referral evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects referral, the service owner must notify stakeholders,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":559,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00560","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.9 states that the review committee must review dividend evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects dividend, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.3 states that the contract manager must review portfolio evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.9 states that the review committee must review guidance evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.8 states that the compliance.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":560,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00561","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":561,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00562","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of control, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on vendor 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. Section 12.7 states that the contract manager must review review evidence before the implementation date and.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":562,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00563","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects hypothesis, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.8 states that the administrator must review ablation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.8 states that the review committee must review model evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":563,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00564","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.4 states that the administrator must review breach evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects indemnity, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects agreement, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects assignment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.8 states that the service owner must review remedy evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":564,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00565","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.5 states that the service owner must review protocol evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on benefit 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 clinical.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":565,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00566","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.1 states that the service owner must review revenue evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects impairment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":566,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00567","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects runtime, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":567,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00568","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on review 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects access, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":568,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00569","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.6 states that the operations lead must review cohort evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 12.1 states that the compliance officer must review dataset evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects sample, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects finding,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":569,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00570","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects termination, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.1 states that the operations lead must review jurisdiction evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.1 states that the service owner must review jurisdiction evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects notice, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":570,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00571","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. 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 provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.4 states that the review committee must review claims evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects appeal, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.4 states that the review committee must review screening evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on claims data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":571,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00572","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review quarter evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on currency 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 guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":572,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00573","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.4 states that the administrator must review throughput evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.8 states that the service owner must review cache evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects deployment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects endpoint, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":573,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00574","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.2 states that the review committee must review incident evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on retention 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 encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":574,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00575","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.7 states that the service owner must review hypothesis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.9 states that the administrator must review baseline evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.5 states that the administrator must review metric evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.8 states that the contract manager must review hypothesis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on dataset data.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":575,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00576","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects jurisdiction, 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 jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.6 states that the operations lead must review notice evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.1 states that the contract manager.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":576,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00577","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on provider 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 referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.3 states that the contract manager must review network evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":577,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00578","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on currency 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 margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects dividend, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.5 states that the review committee must review amortization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.4 states that the compliance officer must review asset evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":578,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00579","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.9 states that the administrator must review runtime evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects replica, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects endpoint, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.6 states that the review committee must review namespace evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":579,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00580","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.1 states that the service owner must review audit evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.2 states that the compliance officer must review control evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.6 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on control 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 exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":580,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00581","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.5 states that the review committee must review sample evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.8 states that the operations lead must review sample evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects finding, 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 cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on dataset.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":581,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00582","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.8 states that the administrator must review notice evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":582,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00583","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.9 states that the operations lead must review coverage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review appeal evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":583,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00584","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.4 states that the operations lead must review dividend evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects forecast, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.5 states that the contract manager must review expense evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects margin, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":584,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00585","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.2 states that the operations lead must review schema evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects callback, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects replica, 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 latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects deployment, the administrator must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":585,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00586","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA 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 classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.2 states that the service owner must review policy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects incident, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.3 states that the review committee must review.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":586,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00587","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.3 states that the service owner must review analysis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.8 states that the contract manager must review appendix evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.1 states that the service owner must review methodology evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":587,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00588","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.4 states that the service owner must review exhibit evidence before the renewal 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects assignment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":588,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00589","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects therapy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects authorization, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":589,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00590","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects asset, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.4 states that the administrator must review margin evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. 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 expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects amortization, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":590,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00591","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects timeout, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.5 states that the operations lead must review migration evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.6 states that the contract manager must review timeout evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 12.9 states that the review committee must review migration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.4 states that the operations lead must review.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":591,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00592","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects exception, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects vendor, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects audit, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects retention, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":592,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00593","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":593,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00594","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects schedule, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on assignment 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 agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.6 states that the service owner must review confidential evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":594,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00595","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects member, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.1 states that the contract manager must review therapy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.7 states that the administrator must review benefit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects diagnosis, the administrator must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":595,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00596","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects guidance, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.5 states that the compliance officer must review margin evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects forecast, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.6 states that the administrator must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.6 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.5 states that the review committee must review segment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":596,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00597","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.6 states that the operations lead must review timeout evidence before the certification 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. If a material change affects runtime, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects deployment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":597,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00598","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects review, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.1 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 11.9 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.7 states that the contract manager must review risk evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":598,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00599","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects ablation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects variance, 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 finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on replication 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 appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":599,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00600","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on confidential 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. Section 5.2 states that the operations lead must review jurisdiction evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":600,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00601","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 9.7 states that the administrator must review referral evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects provider, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.2 states that the contract manager must review claims evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":601,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00602","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead 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 asset, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dividend, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.4 states that the contract manager must review cashflow evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer 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 currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":602,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00603","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.6 states that the operations lead must review worker evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects latency, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":603,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00604","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.3 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects audit, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review 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. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.7 states that the service owner must review access evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.4 states that the contract manager must review access evidence before the reporting date.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":604,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00605","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects experiment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.7 states that the compliance officer.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":605,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00606","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects confidential, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects schedule, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":606,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00607","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.3 states that the operations lead must review protocol evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects network, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects benefit, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.8 states that the compliance officer must review diagnosis evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":607,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00608","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects margin, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects revenue, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects portfolio, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":608,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00609","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects serializer, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.3 states that the review committee must review migration evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on namespace 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 migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects throughput, 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 runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":609,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00610","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects monitoring, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects approval, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.9 states that the contract manager must review review evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":610,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00611","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects cohort, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects baseline, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects variance, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects observation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.6 states that the compliance officer must review analysis evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":611,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00612","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.6 states that the administrator must review jurisdiction evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.2 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.3 states that the administrator must review indemnity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.2 states that the service owner must review.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":612,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00613","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects authorization, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.6 states that the administrator must review authorization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects protocol, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects claims, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on claims data.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":613,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00614","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects liability, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects forecast, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.5 states that the service owner must review liquidity evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":614,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00615","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.2 states that the contract manager must review namespace evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.5 states that the review committee must review namespace evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on throughput 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 deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":615,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00616","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control 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. Section 17.4 states that the service owner must review retention evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.8 states that the contract manager must review monitoring evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.1 states that the review committee must review encryption evidence before the escalation date.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":616,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00617","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.5 states that the contract manager must review appendix evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects metric, the contract manager 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. The review committee may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":617,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00618","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.6 states that the review committee must review jurisdiction evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.1 states that the contract manager must review termination evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.5 states that the operations lead must review warranty evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects exhibit, 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 warranty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects termination, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":618,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00619","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.1 states that the review committee must review member evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects appeal, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.3 states that the operations lead must review authorization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on clinical data when the source is.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":619,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00620","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 12.3 states that the administrator must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liability, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects asset, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.1 states that the contract manager must review dividend evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.7 states that the administrator must review impairment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects margin,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":620,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00621","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects permission, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects migration, 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 migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects serializer, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cache, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects serializer, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.5 states that the contract manager must review.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":621,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00622","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.5 states that the compliance officer must review vendor evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects encryption, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects monitoring, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":622,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00623","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.7 states that the administrator must review finding evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.3 states that the service owner must review replication evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":623,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00624","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects assignment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.5 states that the administrator must review jurisdiction evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects indemnity, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects notice, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":624,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00625","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.8 states that the contract manager must review authorization evidence before the submission 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. The administrator may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects clinical, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dosage, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects diagnosis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":625,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00626","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects portfolio, 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 revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects guidance, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.4 states that the service owner must review impairment evidence before the implementation date.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":626,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00627","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.8 states that the contract manager must review endpoint evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.5 states that the administrator must review cache evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects serializer, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.5 states that the service owner must review latency evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":627,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00628","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.1 states that the operations lead must review policy evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects monitoring, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects encryption, the service owner 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 retention, 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 control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":628,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00629","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects appendix, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on variance 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 experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on hypothesis 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 sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":629,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00630","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.7 states that the contract manager must review governing evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.9 states that the operations lead must review counterparty evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.8 states that the review committee must review schedule evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.1 states that the administrator must review assignment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects termination, the operations.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":630,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00631","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 15.1 states that the compliance officer must review exclusion evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, 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. If a material change affects claims, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.4 states that the contract manager must review coverage evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":631,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00632","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. 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 dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 11.3 states that the contract manager must review currency evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects forecast, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects margin, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects guidance, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":632,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00633","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.4 states that the service owner must review configuration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects migration, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on configuration 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 migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":633,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00634","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.5 states that the service owner must review review evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.4 states that the contract manager must review access evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects encryption, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on audit data when the source is.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":634,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00635","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.2 states that the contract manager must review experiment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.5 states that the contract manager must review metric evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects observation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.9 states that the service owner must review finding evidence before the certification date and document the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":635,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00636","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects assignment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.9 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":636,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00637","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.7 states that the administrator must review clinical evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.1 states that the compliance officer must review therapy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.6 states that the compliance officer must review clinical evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":637,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00638","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent margin 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects revenue, 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 segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects quarter, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.6 states that the service owner must review portfolio evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":638,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00639","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects namespace, 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 worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.3 states that the operations lead must review migration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.9 states that the compliance officer must review configuration evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":639,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00640","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 16.2 states that the service owner must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects policy, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects policy, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":640,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00641","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":641,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00642","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on breach 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 obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.4 states that the contract manager must review notice evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.2 states that the compliance officer must review counterparty evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.6 states that the compliance officer must review assignment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":642,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00643","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.7 states that the operations lead must review claims evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.1 states that the contract manager must review benefit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.1 states that the review committee must review coverage evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects authorization, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":643,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00644","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.6 states that the operations lead must review quarter evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on forecast 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 expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects impairment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":644,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00645","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects runtime, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.8 states that the service owner must review migration evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":645,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00646","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of policy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects vendor, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects risk, the service owner must notify.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":646,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00647","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.2 states that the operations lead must review metric evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.2 states that the operations lead must review ablation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.5 states that the service owner must review model evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.8 states that the review committee must review finding evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":647,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00648","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.4 states that the contract manager must review obligation evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.5 states that the compliance officer must review schedule evidence before.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":648,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00649","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.6 states that the review committee must review claims evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects appeal, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects exclusion, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects network, the compliance officer must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":649,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00650","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.9 states that the service owner must review currency evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.3 states that the administrator must review currency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects currency, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects impairment, 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 portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.6 states that the service owner must review impairment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on liquidity 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.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":650,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00651","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.8 states that the operations lead must review endpoint evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects worker, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.2 states that the administrator must review runtime evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.7 states that the administrator must review replica evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects namespace, the contract manager must notify stakeholders,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":651,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00652","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.9 states that the review committee must review monitoring evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.1 states that the service owner must review approval evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects approval, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":652,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00653","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.3 states that the review committee must review ablation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on cohort 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 methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects experiment,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":653,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00654","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects liability, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":654,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00655","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects benefit, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exclusion, 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 coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects therapy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":655,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00656","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects currency, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects asset, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects segment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":656,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00657","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects worker, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.9 states that the administrator must review schema evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":657,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00658","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects risk, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.1 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects exception, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects incident, 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 policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on classification data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":658,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00659","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.3 states that the review committee must review variance evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects sample, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cohort, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects baseline, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects analysis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":659,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00660","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 8.1 states that the service owner must review obligation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on indemnity 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 indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":660,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00661","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.7 states that the review committee must review exclusion evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.6 states that the service owner must review dosage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":661,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00662","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects margin, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.4 states that the contract manager must review asset evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.2 states that the operations lead must review currency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":662,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00663","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects replica, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects callback, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.2 states that the operations lead must review runtime evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":663,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00664","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects exception, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects monitoring, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. 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 classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.7 states that the operations lead must review incident evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":664,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00665","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on analysis 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 sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.7 states that the administrator must review analysis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects hypothesis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.1 states that the administrator must review sample evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.8 states that the compliance officer must review methodology evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":665,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00666","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.6 states that the service owner must review counterparty evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects counterparty, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":666,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00667","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects exclusion, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects diagnosis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects protocol, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.5 states that the compliance officer must review dosage evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.6 states that the review committee must review network evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":667,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00668","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.1 states that the operations lead must review currency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.4 states that the compliance officer must review margin evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects liquidity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dividend, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.5 states that the operations lead must review forecast evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":668,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00669","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects runtime, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects permission, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects schema, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.8 states that the operations lead must review schema evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.8 states that the operations lead must review serializer evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.3 states that the administrator must review migration evidence.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":669,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00670","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.8 states that the administrator must review review evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.9 states that the compliance officer must review classification evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.5 states that the administrator must review retention evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":670,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00671","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects model, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.2 states that the administrator must review replication evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on replication 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 cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects metric, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects finding, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects finding,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":671,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00672","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.1 states that the service owner must review obligation evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.1 states that the contract manager must review indemnity evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":672,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00673","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review protocol evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects dosage, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects protocol, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":673,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00674","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects guidance, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.5 states that the contract manager must review cashflow evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.9 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":674,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00675","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects cache, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects worker, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects permission, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.5 states that the operations lead must review latency evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":675,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00676","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects classification, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.1 states that the review committee must review vendor evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":676,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00677","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.4 states that the operations lead must review baseline evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.5 states that the review committee must review model evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":677,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00678","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":678,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00679","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects therapy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":679,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00680","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue 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. If a material change affects portfolio, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.1 states that the operations lead must review forecast evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner 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 cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on margin data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":680,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00681","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.6 states that the operations lead must review deployment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on timeout 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 schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.9 states that the operations lead must review schema evidence.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":681,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00682","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects retention, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.1 states that the compliance officer must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.2 states that the administrator must review retention evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects classification, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects monitoring, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":682,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00683","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on cohort 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 ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on finding 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 hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.4 states that the contract manager must review metric.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":683,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00684","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects obligation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on termination 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 counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects indemnity, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":684,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00685","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects member, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects appeal, the service owner must.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":685,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00686","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects dividend, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects amortization, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":686,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00687","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects latency, 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 cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":687,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00688","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.5 states that the review committee must review vendor evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.1 states that the operations lead must review review evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 12.3 states that the operations lead must review exception evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects monitoring, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register,.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":688,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00689","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects analysis, 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 observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":689,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00690","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects breach, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects schedule, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":690,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00691","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable authorization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects referral, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on dosage 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 exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects benefit, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":691,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00692","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.7 states that the review committee must review impairment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.1 states that the administrator must review amortization evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":692,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00693","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on namespace data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects timeout, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects worker, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects schema, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":693,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00694","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the administrator must review retention evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.1 states that the contract manager must review risk evidence before the renewal date and document the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":694,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00695","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.5 states that the operations lead must review observation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.2 states that the contract manager must review replication evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of sample, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 7.2 states that the administrator must review sample evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":695,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00696","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.7 states that the administrator must review termination evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.5 states that the review committee must review termination evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects assignment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on breach data when.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":696,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00697","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable protocol threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 9.7 states that the administrator must review diagnosis evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":697,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00698","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.8 states that the service owner must review asset evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects cashflow, 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 amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.6 states that the administrator must review asset evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.2 states that the review committee must review cashflow evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":698,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00699","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on callback data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":699,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00700","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on classification data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects risk, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":700,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00701","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on cohort 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 observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cohort, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.8 states that the administrator must review metric evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":701,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00702","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 8.9 states that the service owner must review jurisdiction evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects jurisdiction, 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 remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects confidential, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.4 states that the service.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":702,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00703","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.1 states that the compliance officer must review coverage evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":703,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00704","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.7 states that the operations lead must review guidance evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.8 states that the compliance officer must review cashflow evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on amortization 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 currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects asset, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.5 states that the administrator must review dividend evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity 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 operations lead may.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":704,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00705","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.2 states that the operations lead must review replica evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":705,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00706","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.8 states that the service owner must review risk evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects approval, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on review data when the source is validated, the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":706,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00707","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.9 states that the service owner must review metric evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on hypothesis 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 model 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. Section 12.2 states that the operations lead must review observation evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":707,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00708","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects obligation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects liability, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects assignment, the administrator must.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":708,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00709","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 12.2 states that the operations lead must review provider evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":709,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00710","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects segment, 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 liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects margin, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":710,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00711","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects serializer, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects callback, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":711,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00712","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":712,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00713","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cohort, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.2 states that the administrator must review observation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.8 states that the compliance officer must review ablation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":713,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00714","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.5 states that the compliance officer must review notice evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liability, 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 liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on obligation data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":714,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00715","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 8.4 states that the administrator must review therapy evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects appeal, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects member, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, 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. The operations lead may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of claims,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":715,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00716","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 15.4 states that the contract manager must review currency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":716,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00717","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.6 states that the review committee must review endpoint evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects timeout, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects runtime, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.5 states that the administrator must review serializer evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on namespace data when.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":717,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00718","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects monitoring, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects retention, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on exception 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 risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":718,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00719","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects model, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.3 states that the compliance officer must review ablation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects metric, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 1.4 states that the review committee must review variance evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects methodology, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.4 states that the contract manager must review dataset evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.6 states that the contract manager must review dataset evidence before the certification date and document.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":719,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00720","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects agreement, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects warranty, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects agreement, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.7 states that the operations lead must review counterparty evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":720,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00721","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects network, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.2 states that the service owner must review exclusion evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on appeal 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 exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":721,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00722","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.5 states that the service owner must review margin evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.1 states that the service owner must review asset evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.5 states that the compliance officer must review portfolio evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects portfolio, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.2 states that the review.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":722,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00723","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer 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 deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects cache, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.3 states that the contract manager must review serializer evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.3 states that the service owner must review namespace evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.3 states.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":723,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00724","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects access, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on classification 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 policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.1 states that the contract manager must review policy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.4 states that the contract manager must review access evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":724,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00725","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.7 states that the contract manager must review analysis evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.9 states that the contract manager must review variance evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects appendix, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects sample, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects baseline, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":725,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00726","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects counterparty, 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 counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects indemnity, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects agreement, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":726,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00727","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.8 states that the administrator must review member evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.7 states that the compliance officer must review appeal evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.5 states that the operations lead must review claims evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects coverage, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.7 states that the operations lead must review benefit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":727,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00728","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects cashflow, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects forecast, 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 guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects quarter, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":728,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00729","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.1 states that the compliance officer must review schema evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":729,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00730","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on access 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 access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.3 states that the review committee must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects approval, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.4 states that the compliance officer must review monitoring evidence before the renewal 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. Records should identify the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":730,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00731","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects observation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.4 states that the compliance officer must review observation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.2 states that the administrator must review model evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on observation data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":731,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00732","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.7 states that the service owner must review jurisdiction evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.4 states that the administrator must review agreement evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on breach 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":732,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00733","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects network, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.7 states that the service owner must.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":733,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00734","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 15.4 states that the review committee must review asset evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on portfolio 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":734,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00735","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.8 states that the operations lead must review runtime evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects runtime, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects replica, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":735,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00736","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.7 states that the service owner must review approval evidence before the escalation 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 monitoring, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.8 states that the service owner must review review evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":736,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00737","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects experiment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.9 states that the administrator must review ablation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects finding, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":737,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00738","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.5 states that the administrator must review liability evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":738,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00739","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.3 states that the administrator must review coverage evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.3 states that the review committee must review diagnosis evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.7 states.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":739,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00740","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects liquidity, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects currency, 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 asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":740,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00741","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 13.5 states that the contract manager must review configuration evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.6 states that the operations lead must review replica evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects callback, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on schema 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 configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":741,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00742","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.7 states that the operations lead must review policy evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects control, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects audit, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":742,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00743","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects model, 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 ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects model, 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 experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.7 states that the operations lead must review methodology evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects experiment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":743,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00744","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review schedule evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects remedy, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects schedule, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.1 states that the operations lead must review notice evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":744,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00745","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.1 states that the service owner must review clinical evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.6 states that the operations lead must review authorization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. 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 diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects clinical, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":745,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00746","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.7 states that the review committee must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on currency 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 dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects portfolio, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead 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 liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":746,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00747","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, 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. If a material change affects cache, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects throughput, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects migration, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":747,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00748","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.3 states that the administrator must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.2 states that the operations lead must review audit evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects incident, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on exception data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.5.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":748,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00749","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on sample 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 ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.1 states that the contract manager must review hypothesis evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.4 states that the service owner must review metric evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replication threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.4 states.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":749,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00750","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.4 states that the administrator must review jurisdiction evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.5 states that the contract manager must review jurisdiction evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":750,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00751","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on authorization 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 referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on screening 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 clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appeal language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.1 states that the administrator must review clinical evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on screening data when.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":751,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00752","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on margin 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 asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.4 states that the compliance officer must review guidance evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on asset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.7 states that the service owner must review portfolio evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":752,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00753","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.5 states that the review committee must review runtime evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 11.1 states that the compliance officer must review callback evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 11.5 states that the compliance officer must review serializer evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects timeout, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects worker, the review committee must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":753,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00754","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on attestation 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 access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 10.3 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects policy, the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":754,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00755","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.3 states that the operations lead must review analysis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on appendix 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 model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cohort, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects analysis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.5.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":755,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00756","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects counterparty, 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 assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.7 states that the compliance officer must review exhibit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":756,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00757","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.4 states that the review committee must review dosage evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects benefit, the service owner must notify stakeholders,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":757,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00758","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects segment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on amortization 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 currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance 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. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":758,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00759","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.4 states that the contract manager must review latency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency 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 contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects throughput, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":759,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00760","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects review, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.6 states that the administrator must review encryption evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects policy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":760,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00761","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 9.8 states that the compliance officer must review finding evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.1 states that the service owner must review observation evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects ablation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects metric, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects replication, 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 cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on ablation.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":761,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00762","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 13.8 states that the contract manager must review termination evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects indemnity, 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 exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.2 states that the compliance officer must review confidential evidence.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":762,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00763","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on diagnosis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects referral, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis 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. Section 4.3 states that the review committee must review provider evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":763,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00764","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects margin, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.7 states that the operations lead must review dividend evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter threshold,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":764,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00765","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects serializer, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of throughput, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 11.9 states that the contract manager must review deployment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":765,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00766","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on incident 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 approval 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. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.3 states that the contract manager must review review evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects approval, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":766,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00767","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.6 states that the contract manager must review baseline evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.3 states that the compliance officer must review observation evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects ablation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on dataset data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":767,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00768","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.9 states that the compliance officer must review jurisdiction evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":768,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00769","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.7 states that the administrator must review referral evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.3 states that the administrator must review appeal evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects diagnosis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects benefit, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects diagnosis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.3 states that the compliance officer must review diagnosis evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.7 states that the operations.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":769,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00770","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue 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.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":770,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00771","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.4 states that the review committee must review serializer evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects schema, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.8 states that the service owner must review schema evidence before the submission 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects timeout, the operations.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":771,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00772","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on classification 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 audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":772,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00773","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the contract manager must review observation evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.4 states that the operations lead must review replication evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.5 states that the contract manager must review sample evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":773,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00774","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.8 states that the operations lead must review schedule evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects schedule, 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 jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects assignment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects termination, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.5 states that the service owner must review.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":774,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00775","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 15.8 states that the contract manager must review protocol evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.9 states that the compliance officer must review clinical evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":775,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00776","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.5 states that the contract manager must review cashflow evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.7 states that the contract manager must review forecast evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.6 states that the service owner must review guidance evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects guidance, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects quarter, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.1.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":776,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00777","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects permission, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on namespace 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 serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects permission, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review..\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":777,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00778","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.4 states that the contract manager must review access evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control 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. Section 2.7 states that the contract manager must review retention evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects monitoring, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":778,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00779","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects analysis, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.7 states that the administrator must review model evidence before the submission date and document the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":779,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00780","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable warranty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.5 states that the contract manager must review breach evidence before the submission.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":780,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00781","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects screening, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.3 states that the contract manager must review dosage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects screening, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects clinical, 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 diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":781,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00782","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 12.3 states that the operations lead must review amortization evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on asset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects liability, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.6 states that the operations lead.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":782,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00783","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.6 states that the review committee must review configuration evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects worker, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.7 states that the compliance officer must review configuration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects endpoint, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":783,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00784","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on risk 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 vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects encryption, the operations lead.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":784,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00785","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects metric, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.2 states that the administrator must review metric evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":785,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00786","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects indemnity, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.5 states that the review committee must review assignment evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":786,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00787","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects referral, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects appeal, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.9 states that the administrator must review authorization evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.8 states that the review committee.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":787,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00788","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.6 states that the contract manager must review currency evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects impairment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects impairment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects cashflow, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects currency, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects revenue, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects portfolio, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":788,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00789","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.2 states that the review committee must review schema evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on migration 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 serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":789,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00790","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects incident, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of control, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects policy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":790,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00791","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.9 states that the service owner must review finding evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects analysis, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.2 states that the compliance officer must review sample evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects ablation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects replication,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":791,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00792","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 1.4 states that the administrator must review warranty evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 5.1 states that the compliance officer must review liability evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.7 states that the service owner must review warranty evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.7 states that the administrator must review governing evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":792,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00793","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable benefit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.8 states that the operations lead must review exclusion evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects coverage, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on authorization.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":793,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00794","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on cashflow 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 guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.6 states that the compliance officer must review amortization evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects portfolio, 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 cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":794,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00795","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of runtime, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects namespace, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.1 states that the compliance officer must review worker evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects replica, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.8 states that the operations lead must review configuration evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":795,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00796","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 12.6 states that the review committee must review attestation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects approval, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on vendor 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 access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects audit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on classification 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 risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.2 states.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":796,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00797","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.6 states that the review committee must review analysis evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 2.5 states that the contract manager must review ablation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects model, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":797,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00798","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":798,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00799","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.8 states that the compliance officer must review provider evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects protocol, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.2 states that the administrator must review network evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on member 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 provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of coverage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":799,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00800","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects portfolio, 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 liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.4 states that the compliance officer must review impairment evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects margin, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":800,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00801","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects cache, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects replica, 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 runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":801,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00802","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.8 states that the compliance officer must review review evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on policy 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 encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on approval 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 encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":802,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00803","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.1 states that the contract manager must review analysis evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.4 states that the contract manager must review dataset evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects finding, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on dataset 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 experiment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects sample,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":803,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00804","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects agreement, 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 schedule evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.1 states that the contract manager must review indemnity evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 12.6 states that the compliance officer must review schedule evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.7 states that the administrator.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":804,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00805","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.8 states that the operations lead must review benefit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.8 states that the compliance officer must review referral evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable benefit.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":805,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00806","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on currency 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 guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on currency 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 expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":806,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00807","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.7 states that the administrator must review timeout evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":807,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00808","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on exception 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 evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.7 states that the service owner must review audit evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.6 states that the compliance officer must review encryption evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects approval, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":808,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00809","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.6 states that the operations lead must review ablation evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects hypothesis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects replication, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects ablation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.6 states.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":809,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00810","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects governing, 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 schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on agreement 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 termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":810,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00811","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.2 states that the service owner must review authorization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on protocol 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 exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.9 states that the compliance officer must review network evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":811,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00812","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects portfolio, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":812,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00813","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects cache, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on worker data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":813,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00814","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 3.7 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects exception, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.8 states that the operations lead must review policy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exception, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 14.5 states that the operations lead must review attestation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":814,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00815","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.1 states that the review committee must review metric evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.2 states that the contract manager must review replication evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects model, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.8 states that the operations lead must review analysis evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on ablation data when.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":815,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00816","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.9 states that the operations lead must review breach evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects termination, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects obligation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 11.2 states that the service owner must review indemnity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of governing, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":816,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00817","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects diagnosis, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.1 states that the compliance officer must review therapy evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects clinical, 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 referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":817,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00818","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects cashflow, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects impairment, 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 liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.4 states that the administrator must review margin evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":818,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00819","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects serializer, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 7.8 states that the contract manager must review replica evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, 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 schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":819,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00820","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects approval, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects attestation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects monitoring, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects vendor, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.6 states that the administrator must review attestation evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":820,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00821","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on experiment 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 methodology threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.2 states that the contract manager must review experiment evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.1 states that the service owner.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":821,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00822","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects confidential, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.3 states that the contract manager must review agreement evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on indemnity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.1 states that the contract manager must review exhibit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":822,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00823","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on coverage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. 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 dosage, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.1 states that the contract manager must review clinical evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":823,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00824","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects revenue, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.1 states that the operations lead must review margin evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.5 states that the administrator must review revenue evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on asset data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":824,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00825","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects runtime, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects throughput, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":825,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00826","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects monitoring, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. 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 approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects encryption, 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 approval threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":826,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00827","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects cohort, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.7 states that the contract manager must review observation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects methodology, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":827,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00828","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe 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 obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects assignment, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 14.4 states that the contract manager must review breach evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on remedy 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 obligation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.4 states that the operations lead must review termination evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":828,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00829","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.8 states that the contract manager must review protocol evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exclusion, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.9 states that the administrator must review benefit.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":829,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00830","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 10.8 states that the administrator must review guidance evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects cashflow, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects revenue, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":830,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00831","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects replica, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on configuration 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 runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects serializer, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects migration, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":831,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00832","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects audit, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of risk, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on access data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":832,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00833","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology 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. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on cohort 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 appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":833,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00834","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on counterparty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects notice, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects indemnity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.1 states that the contract manager must review governing evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":834,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00835","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable coverage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.7 states that the compliance officer must review protocol evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 13.4 states that the contract manager must review diagnosis evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.9 states that the administrator must review dosage evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":835,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00836","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on guidance 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 revenue 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects portfolio, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":836,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00837","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.6 states that the review committee must review runtime evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable worker threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.6 states that the administrator must review migration evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects namespace, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects permission, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":837,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00838","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.1 states that the administrator must review vendor evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects attestation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects encryption, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects attestation, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 11.3 states that the contract manager must review encryption evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects access, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":838,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00839","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.3 states that the service owner must review analysis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects experiment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects experiment, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects experiment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects methodology,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":839,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00840","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 8.5 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects counterparty, the service owner 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. The service owner may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.8 states that the service owner must review notice evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.1 states that the administrator must review remedy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":840,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00841","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of screening, 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 benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.6 states that the operations lead must review screening evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.3 states that the review committee must review coverage evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects network, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on diagnosis data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":841,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00842","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects quarter, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.3 states that the compliance officer must review segment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liability, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on portfolio data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":842,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00843","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects latency, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects endpoint, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects configuration, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.1 states that the compliance officer must review migration evidence before the escalation date.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":843,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00844","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of access, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.9 states that the compliance officer must review incident evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects incident, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on audit data when the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":844,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00845","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects ablation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects dataset, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":845,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00846","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on agreement data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 15.2 states that the contract manager must review termination evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent termination language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.2 states that the service owner must review indemnity evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects governing, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects remedy, the service owner must.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":846,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00847","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.8 states that the administrator must review dosage evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects benefit, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.6 states that the administrator must review protocol evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.2 states that the service owner must review provider evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.5 states that the administrator must review appeal evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects referral,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":847,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00848","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 16.9 states that the contract manager must review revenue evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on asset 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 cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter 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. Section 2.6 states that the compliance officer must review segment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.1 states that the service owner must review revenue evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":848,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00849","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects worker, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects endpoint, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on worker data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":849,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00850","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects audit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.2 states that the administrator must review monitoring evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects policy, the administrator 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 audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":850,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00851","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.2 states that the administrator must review methodology evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable baseline threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":851,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00852","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent jurisdiction language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.1 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects counterparty, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":852,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00853","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.6 states that the review committee must review clinical evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 9.3 states that the service owner must review screening evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of member, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":853,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00854","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects segment, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.9 states that the compliance officer must review impairment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on guidance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":854,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00855","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.9 states that the service owner must review replica evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.8 states that the contract manager must review worker evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of callback, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on timeout data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":855,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00856","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on evidence data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. 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. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.8 states that the compliance officer must review retention evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":856,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00857","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 11.2 states that the contract manager must review appendix evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 2.8 states that the service owner must review baseline evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 16.7 states that the contract manager must review metric evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects ablation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.9 states that the contract manager must review variance evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects hypothesis, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":857,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00858","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.5 states that the contract manager must review schedule evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.7 states that the review committee must review liability evidence before the escalation 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. If a material change affects confidential, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":858,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00859","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.1 states that the contract manager must review appeal evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects claims, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.3 states that the operations lead must review therapy evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects benefit, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":859,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00860","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects segment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects asset, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.4 states that the operations lead must review liquidity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":860,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00861","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, 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. Section 11.2 states that the service owner must review timeout evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on replica data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":861,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00862","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects vendor, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":862,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00863","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 17.4 states that the compliance officer must review sample evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects methodology, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.8 states that the operations lead must review variance evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects metric, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":863,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00864","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 10.1 states that the compliance officer must review agreement evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects notice, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects breach, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects notice, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":864,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00865","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects therapy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.9 states that the service owner must review member evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 10.8 states that the operations lead must review claims evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.5 states that the compliance officer must review dosage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent network language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":865,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00866","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.6 states that the operations lead must review quarter evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 15.5 states that the review committee must review amortization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of segment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":866,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00867","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.7 states that the service owner must review namespace evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects cache, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.4 states that the compliance officer must review callback evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.3 states that the contract manager must review configuration evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":867,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00868","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.5 states that the contract manager must review control evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects control, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.7 states that the contract manager must review approval evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects classification, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on vendor data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":868,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00869","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects metric, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on cohort 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 hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects baseline, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.2 states that the review committee must review variance evidence before the certification.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":869,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00870","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects confidential, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects exhibit, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on schedule data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":870,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00871","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects screening, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.4 states that the operations lead must review benefit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.6 states that the service owner must review claims evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":871,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00872","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects guidance, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of forecast, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.2 states that the administrator must review impairment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects asset, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on amortization data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":872,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00873","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects callback, the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":873,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00874","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 1.2 states that the operations lead must review policy evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.5 states that the administrator must review risk evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects review, the review committee must.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":874,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00875","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects experiment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.8 states that the administrator must review observation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects analysis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.3 states that the administrator must review metric evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":875,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00876","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects breach, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 7.3 states that the service owner must review agreement evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":876,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00877","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects member, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.7 states that the service owner must review benefit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects coverage, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.8 states that the operations lead must review benefit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.9 states that the service owner must review provider evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":877,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00878","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":878,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00879","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects replica, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":879,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00880","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 10.1 states that the service owner must review vendor evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects classification, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects classification, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":880,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00881","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects ablation, 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 dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.1 states that the operations lead must review.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":881,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00882","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.1 states that the administrator must review notice evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects indemnity, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects termination, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on notice data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":882,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00883","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on member 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 appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.5 states that the service owner must review protocol evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable therapy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects referral, the operations.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":883,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00884","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.8 states that the contract manager must review revenue evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.8 states that the administrator must review currency evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of expense, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.5 states that the operations lead must review asset evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":884,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00885","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on callback data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 17.7 states that the contract manager must review schema evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects permission, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.8 states that the administrator must review.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":885,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00886","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable policy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on risk 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. Section 13.3 states that the contract manager must review audit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.3 states that the compliance officer must review incident evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.1 states that the operations lead must review approval evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":886,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00887","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects ablation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects observation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.2 states that the service owner must review replication evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects analysis, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":887,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00888","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable indemnity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":888,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00889","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects coverage, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.3 states that the operations lead must review authorization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects appeal, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 1.2 states that the administrator must review appeal evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on exclusion data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":889,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00890","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.9 states that the compliance officer must review margin evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.8 states that the operations lead must review amortization evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects forecast, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue 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. The procedure requires a.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":890,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00891","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee 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 latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of serializer, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of configuration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects configuration, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.7 states that the contract manager must review deployment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on timeout 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 permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of schema,.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":891,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00892","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exception, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects attestation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.5 states that the operations lead must review policy evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable incident threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable risk threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects vendor, the operations lead must notify.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":892,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00893","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects model, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects sample, 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 model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy..\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":893,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00894","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of warranty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of remedy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable termination threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 8.5 states that the review committee must review notice evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects counterparty, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.2 states that the operations lead must review governing evidence.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":894,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00895","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 2.2 states that the operations lead must review screening evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on diagnosis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects diagnosis, 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 protocol threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects diagnosis, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dosage, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":895,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00896","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 5.7 states that the administrator must review asset evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable forecast threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects liability, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":896,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00897","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.7 states that the administrator must review callback evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.1 states that the service owner must review runtime evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects namespace, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.2 states that the compliance officer must review deployment evidence before the reporting date and document the.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":897,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00898","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 18.7 states that the compliance officer must review audit evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects vendor, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.1 states that the administrator must review attestation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":898,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00899","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent baseline language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.3 states that the compliance officer must review replication evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable analysis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on ablation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":899,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00900","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects liability, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.1 states that the review committee must review assignment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.9 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.2 states that the review committee must review breach evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects obligation, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":900,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00901","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects claims, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.7 states that the contract manager must review clinical evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on referral 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 diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dosage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":901,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00902","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.5 states that the review committee must review liability evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.2 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects portfolio, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.1 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.1 states that the compliance officer must review liquidity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects margin, 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 dividend threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome..\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":902,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00903","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects serializer, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of schema, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on timeout data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects cache, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on migration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.6 states that the review committee must review endpoint evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":903,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00904","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects vendor, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects vendor, 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 retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.4 states that the review committee must review audit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects vendor, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":904,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00905","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 13.7 states that the administrator must review sample evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.2 states that the compliance officer must review finding evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects metric, 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 variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects hypothesis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":905,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00906","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects assignment, 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 remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects confidential, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects indemnity, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":906,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00907","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects screening, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects appeal, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.7 states that the review committee must review therapy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent provider language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects dosage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appeal language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":907,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00908","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability 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. Section 4.6 states that the compliance officer must review forecast evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.7 states that the service owner must review currency evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. 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 segment, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.1 states that the administrator must review.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":908,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00909","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.1 states that the compliance officer must review serializer evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.4 states that the contract manager must review deployment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, 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 latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects throughput, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":909,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00910","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.7 states that the compliance officer must review retention evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.4 states that the compliance officer must review attestation evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.2 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":910,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00911","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.8 states that the contract manager must review sample evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects finding, 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 metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects observation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.1 states that the compliance officer must review dataset.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":911,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00912","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on breach data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.2 states that the service owner must review warranty evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":912,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00913","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects therapy, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of protocol, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.9 states that the administrator must review referral evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects member, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on appeal 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 diagnosis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on protocol data.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":913,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00914","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dividend 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. Section 6.1 states that the contract manager must review currency evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on liability 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 margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":914,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00915","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schema language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.5 states that the administrator must review migration evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":915,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00916","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects audit, 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 classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":916,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00917","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.5 states that the service owner must review experiment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on analysis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.9 states that the operations lead must review cohort evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent ablation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":917,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00918","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe contract manager may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.6 states that the compliance officer must review assignment evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects indemnity, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects obligation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":918,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00919","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects clinical, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.8 states that the review committee must review therapy evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language,.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":919,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00920","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects amortization, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.4 states that the administrator must review currency evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":920,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00921","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on permission 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 replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects worker, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects migration, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects callback, the administrator must.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":921,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00922","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable monitoring threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.5 states that the operations lead must review review evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.8 states that the review committee must review attestation evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects approval, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on monitoring data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on audit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.7 states that the review committee must review encryption evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":922,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00923","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable observation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.6 states that the operations lead must review observation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":923,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00924","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.6 states that the review committee must review assignment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review termination evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of counterparty, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects schedule, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of agreement, historical performance, and current constraints before the.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":924,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00925","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of therapy, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects coverage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects referral, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent screening language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects diagnosis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":925,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00926","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects liability, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.3 states that the administrator must review cashflow evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.9 states that the service owner must review margin evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.5 states that the operations lead must review liquidity evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of quarter, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.4 states that the service owner.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":926,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00927","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects endpoint, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.9 states that the review committee must review throughput evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects callback, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":927,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00928","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. 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 exception, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent review language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects incident, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects risk, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":928,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00929","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 13.7 states that the review committee must review observation evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects experiment, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.5 states that the review committee must review analysis evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":929,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00930","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects remedy, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent confidential language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.5 states that the review committee must review breach evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 7.4 states that the administrator must review counterparty evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liability, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.9 states that the operations lead must review termination evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.9 states that the administrator must review.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":930,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00931","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects benefit, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.9 states that the administrator must review member evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 14.4 states that the compliance officer must review network evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 9.7 states that the review committee must review member evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of network, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":931,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00932","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects amortization, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.6 states that the operations lead must review impairment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 18.3 states that the operations lead must review liability evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on cashflow data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":932,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00933","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects serializer, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.1 states that the service owner must review schema evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects serializer, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.2 states that the administrator must review serializer evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects schema, 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 throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on cache data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":933,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00934","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.2 states that the review committee must review access evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects incident, 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 control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects control, the review committee must notify.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":934,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00935","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of metric, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects methodology, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects sample, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.9 states that the contract manager must review dataset evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":935,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00936","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.4 states that the review committee must review assignment evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects governing, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent breach language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects warranty, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.7 states that the review committee must review exhibit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.5 states that the service owner must review liability evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.4 states that the administrator must.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":936,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00937","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects dosage, 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 clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The administrator may rely on therapy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 16.5 states that the compliance officer must review coverage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exclusion language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appeal language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects coverage, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on member data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker,.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":937,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00938","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 17.4 states that the service owner must review currency evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable guidance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.2 states that the compliance officer must review dividend evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":938,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00939","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 4.5 states that the review committee must review latency evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects namespace, 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 namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects namespace, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":939,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00940","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on retention data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects retention, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 18.3 states that the service owner must review incident evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on review data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects encryption, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.8 states that the operations lead must review evidence evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":940,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00941","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on hypothesis data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on baseline data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent sample language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent model language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects sample, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects observation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of replication, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on experiment data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":941,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00942","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.5 states that the compliance officer must review remedy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent notice language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.1 states that the compliance officer must review exhibit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":942,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00943","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 14.1 states that the compliance officer must review exclusion evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects claims, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of referral, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable referral threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.2 states that the service owner must review referral evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":943,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00944","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 17.9 states that the review committee must review liquidity evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on asset 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 revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.5 states that the administrator must review dividend evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of cashflow, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on quarter data when the source is validated, the exception is.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":944,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00945","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 2.8 states that the administrator must review endpoint evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 12.3 states that the administrator must review namespace evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record..\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":945,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00946","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 6.2 states that the operations lead must review vendor evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects risk, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.4 states that the administrator must review monitoring evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects incident, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 16.4 states that the administrator must review policy evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":946,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00947","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 6.6 states that the contract manager must review sample evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of analysis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects methodology, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appendix language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on methodology data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 15.3 states that the contract manager must review ablation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on sample data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":947,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00948","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable breach threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects notice, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The operations lead may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness..\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":948,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00949","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable screening threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.4 states that the contract manager must review referral evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 4.5 states that the review committee must review referral evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on clinical data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects coverage, the operations lead must notify stakeholders,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":949,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00950","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA 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.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":950,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00951","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA 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.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":951,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00952","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf 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.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":952,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00953","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe 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.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":953,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00954","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 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,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":954,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00955","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA 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.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":955,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00956","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA 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.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":956,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00957","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 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.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":957,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00958","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe 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.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":958,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00959","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf 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.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":959,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00960","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe 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.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":960,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00961","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe 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.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":961,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00962","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent margin language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of dividend, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of asset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":962,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00963","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 3.3 states that the review committee must review worker evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects throughput, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects permission, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects replica, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.2 states that the service owner must review latency evidence before the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":963,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00964","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe review committee may rely on access data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of retention, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.7 states that the review committee must review risk evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of exception, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on audit data when the source is validated,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":964,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00965","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.2 states that the administrator must review methodology evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects finding, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.5 states that the compliance officer must review appendix evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of appendix, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.6 states that the compliance officer must review appendix evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on metric data when.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":965,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00966","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects breach, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on jurisdiction data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.2 states that the administrator must review breach evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of confidential, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":966,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00967","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 18.4 states that the compliance officer must review protocol evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on protocol data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely on appeal data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects provider, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 9.5 states that the service owner must review provider 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. The review committee may rely on benefit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of authorization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":967,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00968","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable currency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liquidity threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The contract manager may rely on forecast data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects liquidity, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":968,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00969","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent deployment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects worker, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 14.9 states that the operations lead must review callback evidence before the reporting 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 procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of namespace, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent namespace language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects schema, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":969,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00970","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on vendor 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 attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.3 states that the administrator must review risk evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on risk data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects audit, the contract manager.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":970,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00971","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable finding threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.9 states that the compliance officer must review sample evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cohort threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects hypothesis, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 8.1 states that the service owner must review dataset evidence before the reporting 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 11.5 states that the contract manager must review cohort evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 1.2 states that the service owner must.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":971,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00972","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe procedure requires a comparison of assignment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects counterparty, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects schedule, the compliance officer 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. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable jurisdiction threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.4 states that the operations lead must review notice evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 11.7 states that the service owner must review indemnity evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The administrator may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit,.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":972,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00973","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects coverage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent clinical language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects protocol, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.3 states that the service owner must review coverage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The review committee may rely on authorization 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 clinical threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language,.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":973,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00974","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on amortization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent forecast language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on segment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 15.5 states that the review committee must review segment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable asset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on portfolio data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.6 states that the.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":974,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00975","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent worker language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.1 states that the contract manager must review deployment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable serializer threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cache threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.6 states that the compliance officer must review callback evidence before the submission date and document.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":975,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00976","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.7 states that the service owner must review approval evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, 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. Section 16.6 states that the compliance officer must review risk evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.7 states that the administrator must review attestation evidence before the certification date and document.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":976,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00977","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects experiment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.9 states that the review committee must review finding evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 9.1 states that the service owner must review analysis evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appendix threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 17.3 states that the operations lead.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":977,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00978","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on notice 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 exhibit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 13.3 states that the contract manager must review schedule evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent indemnity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects liability, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.5 states that the compliance officer must review jurisdiction evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language,.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":978,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00979","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 7.8 states that the operations lead must review clinical evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.9 states that the administrator must review dosage evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects screening, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":979,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00980","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on currency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects quarter, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects segment, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The contract manager may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of portfolio, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects forecast, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":980,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00981","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects configuration, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.5 states that the administrator must review serializer evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of worker, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on runtime data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.4 states that the compliance officer must review namespace evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":981,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00982","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable classification threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review 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 policy, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on vendor data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent incident language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":982,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00983","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects replication, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 9.8 states that the service owner must review metric evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.1 states that the service owner must review appendix evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of methodology, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on cohort data when the.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":983,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00984","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.7 states that the operations lead must review termination evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The contract manager may rely on warranty 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. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects breach, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent assignment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects governing, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":984,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00985","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe operations lead may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects screening, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects diagnosis, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 4.1 states that the administrator must review diagnosis evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent coverage language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects protocol, the service owner must notify.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":985,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00986","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.1 states that the contract manager must review quarter evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects forecast, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects quarter, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects revenue, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of revenue, historical performance, and current constraints before.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":986,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00987","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable runtime threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable throughput threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 4.4 states that the review committee must review worker evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects runtime, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The review committee may rely on throughput data when the.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":987,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00988","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects review, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects access, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 3.2 states that the service owner must review audit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects retention, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable review threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.2 states that the review committee must review review evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on approval.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":988,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00989","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects cohort, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent methodology language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects methodology, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects finding, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.5 states that the contract manager must review baseline evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on baseline data when the source.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":989,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00990","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe service owner may rely on breach 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. If a material change affects remedy, 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 assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.9 states that the contract manager must review exhibit evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.2 states that the compliance officer must review obligation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.8 states that the contract manager must review warranty evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The operations lead may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":990,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00991","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on claims data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 14.3 states that the service owner must review member evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 3.7 states that the contract manager must review protocol evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects claims, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on dosage data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The operations lead may rely on.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":991,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00992","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nIf a material change affects quarter, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.8 states that the service owner must review forecast evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on margin data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 10.1 states that the contract manager must review amortization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects liability, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on quarter.\n\nTask: Extract all obligations.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":992,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00993","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 4.1 states that the compliance officer must review schema evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects endpoint, 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 schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent throughput language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner 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 serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable permission threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 11.1 states that the review committee must review serializer evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent configuration.\n\nTask: Extract all dates and deadlines.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":244,"request_order":993,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00994","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nA reviewer should flag inconsistent risk language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent encryption language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.8 states that the administrator must review vendor evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects policy, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects policy, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects control, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The administrator may rely on incident data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The compliance officer may rely on access data.\n\nTask: Extract all entities.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":994,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00995","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nSection 15.3 states that the service owner must review experiment evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent experiment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects cohort, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The service owner may rely on dataset 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 dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects finding, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 14.1 states that the contract manager must review variance.\n\nTask: Extract all monetary amounts.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":995,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00996","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe 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 counterparty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects warranty, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable agreement threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.3 states that the operations lead must review warranty evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 9.5 states that the administrator must review obligation evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of breach, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on governing data.\n\nTask: Extract termination clauses.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":996,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00997","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe administrator may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 7.3 states that the operations lead must review clinical evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects authorization, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects exclusion, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 15.2 states that the compliance officer must review network evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of appeal, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely.\n\nTask: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":241,"request_order":997,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00998","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nRecords should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects forecast, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent expense language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.2 states that the contract manager must review guidance evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on impairment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent quarter language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.\n\nTask: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":243,"request_order":998,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}
{"id":"shared_schema_1k_00999","prompt":"Instruction:\nYou are a careful information extraction system.\nReturn only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.\nPreserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.\nPrefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.\n\nJSON schema:\n{\n  \"document_type\": \"string\",\n  \"entities\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"string\",\n      \"role\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"dates\": [\n    {\n      \"date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD or string\",\n      \"meaning\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"obligations\": [\n    {\n      \"party\": \"string\",\n      \"action\": \"string\",\n      \"deadline\": \"string|null\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"amounts\": [\n    {\n      \"value\": \"string\",\n      \"currency\": \"string|null\",\n      \"context\": \"string\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"risks\": [\n    {\n      \"risk\": \"string\",\n      \"severity\": \"low|medium|high\",\n      \"evidence\": \"string\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"confidence\": \"number\"\n}\n\nFew-shot examples:\nExample 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.\nExample 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}\nExample 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.\nExample 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}\nRecords 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.\n\nAdditional extraction policy:\nA 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.\n\nDocument:\nThe compliance officer may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects configuration, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.2 states that the contract manager must review cache evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.5 states that the contract manager must review schema evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 6.4 states that the review committee must review runtime evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects replica, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of latency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations.\n\nTask: Extract risks that require manual review.","max_tokens":128,"temperature":0.0,"metadata":{"scenario":"shared_schema_1k","prefix_group":"schema_prefix_001","expected_shared_prefix_tokens":1004,"unique_suffix_tokens":245,"request_order":999,"description":"All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change."}}