Court Artifacts Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_5c138d50cd9ae120d40e51e9",
  "kind": "CourtArtifactsCollected",
  "payload": {
    "artifacts": {
      "case_33345770894870c0d5c0454f": {
        "input_hash": "d4f10927757a983358bf7826a800b96405217d691fcfdce0993c7c69ec212ed1",
        "input_id": "input_d4aab197a457709b0a1e5b0d",
        "response": {
          "construction": null,
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_26065213fd9c0b3710315ec1 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1, applicable at tick 9) caps extraction requests 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 type is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the record establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The final clause of S3 (\"A request in excess of the applicable limit is governed by S4\") presupposes an applicable limit; none applies here, so S4 is not engaged. This case is materially similar to precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 under the same statute version (S3 v1), whose published construction is binding under B3 and squarely covers the mine_claim instrument. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), no S3 violation is established; whether unchartered households should be limited is for the legislature. No remedies are offered or available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_e773b159175b57d716cc04c5": {
        "input_hash": "1a72cbe9c5e28e583f7f74a574d6feb7cf119f0d046521301e554c99d722a51f",
        "input_id": "input_16888769cbf9fb4f9647877a",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's quota binds only a \"household of record,\" i.e., a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the record shows only a non-charter Archive instrument (such as a mine_claim) for the acting lineage, no applicable limit exists and no S3 violation can be found.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1 is effective at tick 1 and applies at tick 9 (B3). S3 caps at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence is an archive lineage instrument whose instrument type is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes a charter for this lineage, and I may not infer facts not in the record. The text must be applied as written (B1, B2); extending the quota to unchartered households is a matter for the legislature. The clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit, and none applies here. Precedent precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 construes the identical statute version on materially identical facts (same lineage, same request and depletion figures, same mine_claim evidence) and is binding under B3. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_f7139d573d2d07b21cb0f884": {
        "input_hash": "627b3384ab84fde63b421e4c7380eece19a3191badb1d98a3f62ccdbca27322e",
        "input_id": "input_a97e7f5bcaa4e5fd00881de2",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's extraction limit reaches only a \"household of record,\" which the statute defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the record shows only an Archive instrument of another type (here a mine_claim) and no charter, S3 supplies no applicable limit and S4 is not engaged.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_d042259e5d23dda187fad94a, requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units) with actual_depletion 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 9 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" defined by the statute as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence 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, and I may not infer facts outside the record (B1, B2). The closing clause \"A request in excess of the applicable limit is governed by S4\" presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class. The published construction in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, under the same statute version and materially similar facts (same instrument type, same request magnitude, same action kind), is binding under B3 and requires this result. The defense's further contentions (that request equalled depletion, that intensity 2 was the lawful unit count) are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request; the charter element fails independently. No remedy is available or offered.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      }
    },
    "result": {
      "court_artifacts": [
        {
          "case_id": "case_33345770894870c0d5c0454f",
          "input_hash": "d4f10927757a983358bf7826a800b96405217d691fcfdce0993c7c69ec212ed1",
          "input_id": "input_d4aab197a457709b0a1e5b0d",
          "response": {
            "construction": null,
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_26065213fd9c0b3710315ec1 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1, applicable at tick 9) caps extraction requests 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 type is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the record establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The final clause of S3 (\"A request in excess of the applicable limit is governed by S4\") presupposes an applicable limit; none applies here, so S4 is not engaged. This case is materially similar to precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 under the same statute version (S3 v1), whose published construction is binding under B3 and squarely covers the mine_claim instrument. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), no S3 violation is established; whether unchartered households should be limited is for the legislature. No remedies are offered or available.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_e773b159175b57d716cc04c5",
          "input_hash": "1a72cbe9c5e28e583f7f74a574d6feb7cf119f0d046521301e554c99d722a51f",
          "input_id": "input_16888769cbf9fb4f9647877a",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's quota binds only a \"household of record,\" i.e., a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the record shows only a non-charter Archive instrument (such as a mine_claim) for the acting lineage, no applicable limit exists and no S3 violation can be found.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1 is effective at tick 1 and applies at tick 9 (B3). S3 caps at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence is an archive lineage instrument whose instrument type is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes a charter for this lineage, and I may not infer facts not in the record. The text must be applied as written (B1, B2); extending the quota to unchartered households is a matter for the legislature. The clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit, and none applies here. Precedent precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 construes the identical statute version on materially identical facts (same lineage, same request and depletion figures, same mine_claim evidence) and is binding under B3. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_f7139d573d2d07b21cb0f884",
          "input_hash": "627b3384ab84fde63b421e4c7380eece19a3191badb1d98a3f62ccdbca27322e",
          "input_id": "input_a97e7f5bcaa4e5fd00881de2",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's extraction limit reaches only a \"household of record,\" which the statute defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the record shows only an Archive instrument of another type (here a mine_claim) and no charter, S3 supplies no applicable limit and S4 is not engaged.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_d042259e5d23dda187fad94a, requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units) with actual_depletion 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 9 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" defined by the statute as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence 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, and I may not infer facts outside the record (B1, B2). The closing clause \"A request in excess of the applicable limit is governed by S4\" presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class. The published construction in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, under the same statute version and materially similar facts (same instrument type, same request magnitude, same action kind), is binding under B3 and requires this result. The defense's further contentions (that request equalled depletion, that intensity 2 was the lawful unit count) are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request; the charter element fails independently. No remedy is available or offered.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run10",
  "sequence": 560,
  "tick": 9
}