Court Provider Wave Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_85d40f22ec9e8b02afda2171",
  "kind": "CourtProviderWaveCollected",
  "payload": {
    "effort": "medium",
    "model": "claude-opus-5",
    "provider": "anthropic",
    "responses": {
      "case_716fa91d3eac3785c002c783": {
        "binding": {
          "case_id": "case_716fa91d3eac3785c002c783",
          "casebook_boundary_tick": 12,
          "input_hash": "a8fbe5325335ef987a55ef4f22100a301a642be00f8eb77d8d558b336abefb7d",
          "input_id": "input_ec76d5a449c8532c1953067e",
          "law_versions": [
            {
              "document_id": "Book",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S1",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S2",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S3",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S4",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S5",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S6",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            }
          ],
          "precedent_ids": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d"
          ],
          "statute_effective_tick": 1,
          "statute_id": "S3",
          "statute_version": 1,
          "subject_tick": 10
        },
        "call_id": "court-call_be35d7a9229cfba95cc42694",
        "input_hash": "a8fbe5325335ef987a55ef4f22100a301a642be00f8eb77d8d558b336abefb7d",
        "input_id": "input_ec76d5a449c8532c1953067e",
        "provider_model": "claude-opus-5",
        "provider_request_id": "req_011CdcyJF3u9hs6eFs6w7rvF",
        "provider_response_id": "msg_011CdcyJG4fscYMqwaUhX6pR",
        "request_hash": "49447e47136b362a98e9a4764c0703b224a50e016ed2df928281e8f36de2e9cf",
        "response": {
          "construction": null,
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 10 by lineage_26065213fd9c0b3710315ec1 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 10 under B3 and caps 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 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 followers precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca and precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d) construe the same statute version on materially identical facts — including precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2 involving this same lineage at tick 9 — and are binding under B3. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), no S3 violation is established. No remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok",
        "usage": {
          "cache_creation_input_tokens": 0,
          "cache_read_input_tokens": 0,
          "input_tokens": 9736,
          "output_tokens": 611
        },
        "validation_error": null
      },
      "case_e13fced57d1b477b66a27961": {
        "binding": {
          "case_id": "case_e13fced57d1b477b66a27961",
          "casebook_boundary_tick": 12,
          "input_hash": "0cf5f6cf6d8473b4d4f831dab0d890724a69d098a3be35f866ad81c51fdd65e3",
          "input_id": "input_572084bed50cb3b232622ef8",
          "law_versions": [
            {
              "document_id": "Book",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S1",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S2",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S3",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S4",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S5",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S6",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            }
          ],
          "precedent_ids": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d"
          ],
          "statute_effective_tick": 1,
          "statute_id": "S3",
          "statute_version": 1,
          "subject_tick": 12
        },
        "call_id": "court-call_ab1f881cd143fb89fd988fcf",
        "input_hash": "0cf5f6cf6d8473b4d4f831dab0d890724a69d098a3be35f866ad81c51fdd65e3",
        "input_id": "input_572084bed50cb3b232622ef8",
        "provider_model": "claude-opus-5",
        "provider_request_id": "req_011CdcyJEtEbQxkVHUMjNfQZ",
        "provider_response_id": "msg_011CdcyJFUhbYAQerAQYPMTM",
        "request_hash": "f1fe49083a34a6564406a177331ffd2fa6687a7d00f62cfd21b74ad215177325",
        "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"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 12 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 12 under B3. S3 caps 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 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 a charter for this lineage, 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. Precedent precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, with published constructions reaffirmed in precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca and precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, construes the same statute version on materially similar facts (same instrument type, same request magnitude, same action kind) and is binding under B3. The defense's further contentions about motive and the absence of discrepancy 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",
        "usage": {
          "cache_creation_input_tokens": 0,
          "cache_read_input_tokens": 0,
          "input_tokens": 9817,
          "output_tokens": 711
        },
        "validation_error": null
      },
      "case_f915cde065e739e667c463a8": {
        "binding": {
          "case_id": "case_f915cde065e739e667c463a8",
          "casebook_boundary_tick": 12,
          "input_hash": "411ab16e0190231119affb7c71c336575f028c3af63cc7f767411ce8a68c7066",
          "input_id": "input_60cef78e1bc2efda02711146",
          "law_versions": [
            {
              "document_id": "Book",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S1",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S2",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S3",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S4",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S5",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            },
            {
              "document_id": "S6",
              "effective_tick": 1,
              "version": 1
            }
          ],
          "precedent_ids": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d"
          ],
          "statute_effective_tick": 1,
          "statute_id": "S3",
          "statute_version": 1,
          "subject_tick": 10
        },
        "call_id": "court-call_2b75a272f94ead3d2cfb97fa",
        "input_hash": "411ab16e0190231119affb7c71c336575f028c3af63cc7f767411ce8a68c7066",
        "input_id": "input_60cef78e1bc2efda02711146",
        "provider_model": "claude-opus-5",
        "provider_request_id": "req_011CdcyJF3A1juZaC1jDE3MA",
        "provider_response_id": "msg_011CdcyJG2gyQRQrmKBHPifU",
        "request_hash": "7f55bdd3febbb5e3d334c7c8277cec5a3f59a7b91dad7a86da80ff82d1bda7b3",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's quota binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as 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, S4 is not engaged, and no S3 violation can be found.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 10 by lineage_d042259e5d23dda187fad94a requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 10 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 sole 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 a charter for this lineage, 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, and none applies to a lineage outside the governed class. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, and precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d (the last involving this same lineage, same instrument type, same request magnitude, one tick earlier) are under the same statute version and materially similar facts, and are binding under B3. Whether unchartered households should be limited is a matter for the legislature. Defendant prevails; no remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok",
        "usage": {
          "cache_creation_input_tokens": 0,
          "cache_read_input_tokens": 0,
          "input_tokens": 9622,
          "output_tokens": 686
        },
        "validation_error": null
      }
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run10",
  "sequence": 814,
  "tick": 13
}