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 liquidity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 8.2 states that the administrator must review cashflow evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable portfolio threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable amortization threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of impairment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section.

Task: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.


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

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

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

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

Document:
Section 11.5 states that the compliance officer must review namespace evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable latency threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.3 states that the operations lead must review cache evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent serializer language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on schema data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects latency, the review committee must notify.

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:
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable retention threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.9 states that the operations lead must review encryption evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent attestation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects policy, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects attestation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update.

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 variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on replication data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on metric data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent observation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects appendix, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable model threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.2 states that the administrator must review ablation evidence before.

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:
The contract manager may rely on confidential data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects termination, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of schedule, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 18.9 states that the service owner must review remedy evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects remedy, the service owner must notify.

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:
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The service owner may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects provider, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects dosage, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.2 states that the operations lead must review benefit evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of screening, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent benefit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 13.2 states that the service owner must review clinical.

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:
If a material change affects liability, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of guidance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 5.5 states that the service owner must review asset evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.4 states that the compliance officer must review forecast evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects dividend, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable quarter threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent segment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual.

Task: Extract termination clauses.


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

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

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

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

Document:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent permission language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable replica threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable namespace threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cache language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent callback language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 18.2 states that the administrator must review latency evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent endpoint language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of replica, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted..

Task: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.


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

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

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

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

Document:
The procedure requires a comparison of evidence, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects exception, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects vendor, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 10.1.

Task: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.


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

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

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

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

Document:
If a material change affects replication, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.5 states that the service owner must review metric evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 5.6 states that the service owner must review model evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on sample data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects finding, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of baseline, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable metric threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a.

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:
If a material change affects obligation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.8 states that the contract manager must review remedy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.3 states that the service owner must review liability evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schedule threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent schedule language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 3.4 states that the contract manager must review warranty evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 8.2 states that the.

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

Task: Extract all dates and deadlines.