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

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

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

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

Document:
Records 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.

Task: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.


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

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

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

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

Document:
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 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.

Task: Extract risks that require manual review.

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


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

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

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

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

Document:
A 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.

Task: Extract all obligations.


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

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

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

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

Document:
The procedure requires a comparison of 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.

Task: Extract all dates and deadlines.


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

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

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

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

Document:
Section 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,.

Task: Extract all entities.


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

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

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

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

Document:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent 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.

Task: Extract all monetary amounts.


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

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

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

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

Document:
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 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.

Task: Extract termination clauses.


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

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

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

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

Document:
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. 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.

Task: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.


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

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

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

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

Document:
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 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,.

Task: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.


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

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

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

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

Document:
The 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..

Task: Extract risks that require manual review.


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

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

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

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

Document:
Records 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.

Task: Extract all obligations.


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

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

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

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

Document:
Section 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.

Task: Extract all dates and deadlines.