Court Artifacts Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_234715798061e007a93feb37",
  "kind": "CourtArtifactsCollected",
  "payload": {
    "artifacts": {
      "case_3fa095ac8e8bc5a728d77e58": {
        "input_hash": "45d7ab77f0245c83dea9ed384e0a64b0a3a1d14a56000e22852b57123e0dc76d",
        "input_id": "input_bdf284331336b7f4b311a71b",
        "response": {
          "construction": null,
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
            "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
            "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 20 under B3 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence supplied is an archive lineage instrument for this lineage whose instrument field is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The closing clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class, so S4 is not engaged. The published construction in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 — reaffirmed in precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca (same lineage, same mine_claim instrument), precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, and precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b — construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. The defense's contentions about motive and modest actual depletion are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_62064745729bbb3ce05f7671": {
        "input_hash": "557c379e59cdfa287db6ed9e93a35044ec0a1c49456fd5d141e073fd6410ae8d",
        "input_id": "input_7b40caa687bba31db3099008",
        "response": {
          "construction": null,
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
            "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
            "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 18 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 18 under B3 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence is an archive lineage instrument for this lineage whose instrument field is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The closing clause of S3 referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class, so S4 is not engaged. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its reaffirmations (precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b) construe the same statute version on materially similar facts — same action kind, same request magnitude, same mine_claim instrument — and are binding under B3. The defense's contentions about motive and about depletion rather than request being the measure are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request; the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_735dd6679fa3123338f9e624": {
        "input_hash": "bf39690b1ea5ae17d53cbb18b103858cb54901973b07786a5134ed59ff8cd099",
        "input_id": "input_2b0e79943b8bd7942a8e8aee",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's extraction limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive record for the acting lineage shows only a non-charter instrument such as a mine_claim, no applicable limit exists, S4 is not engaged, and no S3 violation can be found.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
            "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
            "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
            "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 20 under B3 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence supplied is an archive lineage instrument whose instrument field is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), the closing clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its followers (precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b) construe the same statute version on materially similar facts — same action kind, same request magnitude, same mine_claim instrument — and are binding under B3. The defense's contentions about intensity, good faith, and prior unchallenged conduct are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request rather than the yield or intensity; but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      }
    },
    "result": {
      "court_artifacts": [
        {
          "case_id": "case_3fa095ac8e8bc5a728d77e58",
          "input_hash": "45d7ab77f0245c83dea9ed384e0a64b0a3a1d14a56000e22852b57123e0dc76d",
          "input_id": "input_bdf284331336b7f4b311a71b",
          "response": {
            "construction": null,
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
              "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
              "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
              "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
              "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
              "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
              "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 20 under B3 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence supplied is an archive lineage instrument for this lineage whose instrument field is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The closing clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class, so S4 is not engaged. The published construction in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 — reaffirmed in precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca (same lineage, same mine_claim instrument), precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, and precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b — construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. The defense's contentions about motive and modest actual depletion are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_62064745729bbb3ce05f7671",
          "input_hash": "557c379e59cdfa287db6ed9e93a35044ec0a1c49456fd5d141e073fd6410ae8d",
          "input_id": "input_7b40caa687bba31db3099008",
          "response": {
            "construction": null,
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
              "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
              "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
              "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
              "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
              "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
              "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 18 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 18 under B3 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence is an archive lineage instrument for this lineage whose instrument field is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The closing clause of S3 referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class, so S4 is not engaged. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its reaffirmations (precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b) construe the same statute version on materially similar facts — same action kind, same request magnitude, same mine_claim instrument — and are binding under B3. The defense's contentions about motive and about depletion rather than request being the measure are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request; the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_735dd6679fa3123338f9e624",
          "input_hash": "bf39690b1ea5ae17d53cbb18b103858cb54901973b07786a5134ed59ff8cd099",
          "input_id": "input_2b0e79943b8bd7942a8e8aee",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's extraction limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive record for the acting lineage shows only a non-charter instrument such as a mine_claim, no applicable limit exists, S4 is not engaged, and no S3 violation can be found.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
              "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
              "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
              "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
              "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
              "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
              "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 20 under B3 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence supplied is an archive lineage instrument whose instrument field is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), the closing clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its followers (precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b) construe the same statute version on materially similar facts — same action kind, same request magnitude, same mine_claim instrument — and are binding under B3. The defense's contentions about intensity, good faith, and prior unchallenged conduct are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request rather than the yield or intensity; but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run10",
  "sequence": 1303,
  "tick": 21
}