{"items":[{"id":"ITEM-A","label":"not_established","source_units":["ITEM-A:R02","ITEM-A:R03","ITEM-A:R12"],"rationale":"The source sets a fixed EUR 10 per-invoice tolerance: exactly EUR 10 is within tolerance and above EUR 10 blocks automatic payment. It says nothing about overseas suppliers or any percentage adjustment. One could argue that R03's unqualified wording rules out an increase, but the source does not state that the threshold is complete or free of exceptions. Treating that silence as a prohibition would be a closure assumption, so the claim is left open rather than contradicted."},{"id":"ITEM-B","label":"not_established","source_units":["ITEM-B:R10"],"rationale":"R10 says the purchase threshold applies separately to each request rather than to a supplier's monthly total. That governs how the threshold is assessed. It does not say whether related requests are merged. No unit mentions automatic merging, so the source leaves the claim open."},{"id":"ITEM-C","label":"not_established","source_units":["ITEM-C:R04"],"rationale":"R04 lets an Accounts Payable analyst ask for a corrected invoice on a blocked invoice but does not oblige them to ask. Read as a claim about the channel, the proposition is not addressed: no unit mentions a supplier portal or any required method. Read as a general duty to request corrections, it would conflict with R04's 'not obliged'. The channel reading is the more natural one, so the label is not_established."}]}