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 compliance officer may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects guidance, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.5 states that the contract manager must review cashflow evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 18.9 states that the operations lead must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dividend language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable expense threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of amortization, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing.

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

Task: Extract all monetary amounts.

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


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

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

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

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

Document:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent policy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent evidence language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects classification, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent retention language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The service owner may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 8.1 states that the review committee must review vendor evidence before the.

Task: Extract termination clauses.


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

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

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

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

Document:
Section 18.4 states that the operations lead must review baseline evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cohort language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of finding, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable dataset threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent analysis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 8.5 states that the review committee must review model evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable variance threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and.

Task: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.


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

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

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

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

Document:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent exhibit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent obligation language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent warranty language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects jurisdiction, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of obligation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is.

Task: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.


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

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

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

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

Document:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable appeal threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable provider threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on provider data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on authorization data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of member, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects therapy, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and.

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:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects portfolio, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.1 states that the operations lead must review forecast evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent cashflow language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable segment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on margin data when the.

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 endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The review committee may rely on configuration data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 13.6 states that the operations lead must review deployment evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replica language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on timeout data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable schema threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of timeout, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 14.9 states that the operations lead must review schema evidence.

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:
If a material change affects retention, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 11.1 states that the compliance officer must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The compliance officer may rely on attestation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent monitoring language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 2.2 states that the administrator must review retention evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects classification, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects monitoring, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the.

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:
The procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on cohort data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable ablation threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The review committee may rely on finding data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable hypothesis threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of experiment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on model data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 10.4 states that the contract manager must review metric.

Task: Extract all monetary amounts.


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

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

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

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

Document:
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable confidential threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects obligation, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The review committee may rely on termination data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable counterparty threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The compliance officer may rely on schedule data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects indemnity, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of jurisdiction, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on governing data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should.

Task: Extract termination clauses.


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

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

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

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

Document:
The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects member, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of claims, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on screening data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of provider, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent protocol language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects appeal, the service owner must.

Task: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.