Invoice vendor phone: account manager's direct line versus null

Original gold

vendor.phone = null. Comparator case_insensitive, single evidence entry with a null value.

Evidence

Page 1, bottom-left block, printed as:

ACCOUNT MANAGER JIM PINTO 203-851-7119 jimpin@cdwg.com

No other telephone number is printed anywhere on the page. The remittance block at the top carries an e-mail (gachremittance@cdw.com) and bank details but no phone. The schema description for the field reads: "Vendor phone number as printed. Do NOT confuse with the customer's phone. Null if not present."

All three configurations that submitted this document (Codex Astra, Codex Sol, Claude Opus 5) returned 203-851-7119. Claude Sonnet 5 also returned it.

Decision

Accept both. expected stays null; 203-851-7119 is added as an acceptable alternate value, and the phone_digits normalizer is enabled so formatting variants such as (203) 851-7119 are not penalized.

Rationale

The schema defines the vendor as the issuing party and asks for the vendor's phone "as printed", excluding only the customer's phone. An account manager's direct line is a CDW number printed on a CDW invoice; a reader looking for "the vendor's phone" would plausibly take it. The upstream gold treats the remittance e-mail as the vendor e-mail, so it already accepts a department-level contact as the vendor's contact. Reading the account manager's line the same way is consistent with that choice. Equally, null is defensible because no general vendor switchboard number is printed. When a schema leaves two readings open, the benchmark should not penalize either. The lasting fix is a schema clarification, tracked for the clean-schema track: state whether a named employee's direct line counts as the vendor phone.

Effect on scores

One cell of 44. Every configuration's invoice score rises from 0.9773 (Astra), 0.9545 (Sol, Opus), 0.8864 (Sonnet) by one matched cell under v2; the change is identical across configurations, so the ranking on this document is unchanged.