Court Raw Result

{
  "causal": false,
  "event_id": "evt_ae7bb118c3318965b28b538f",
  "kind": "CourtRawResult",
  "payload": {
    "call_id": "court-call_170528e755c26afef851aaf4",
    "case_id": "case_88b7aa5a30399ac3b378736b",
    "raw_response": {
      "content": [
        {
          "citations": null,
          "text": "{\"finding\":\"no_violation\",\"construction\":\"\",\"reasoning\":\"The subject is a work_commons action at tick 38 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 38 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. 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, so S4 is not engaged. The published construction in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, reaffirmed in precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6 (this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument), precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e, and precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5 (identical 6-unit request at intensity 3), construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3; precedent_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5 concerns this same lineage. Neither the request magnitude nor the depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about good faith and system-side caps are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the outcome follows regardless. Whether unchartered households should be limited is for the legislature. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.\",\"precedent_refs\":[\"precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741\",\"precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca\",\"precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d\",\"precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6\",\"precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b\",\"precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e\",\"precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5\",\"precedent_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5\",\"precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2\",\"precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37\",\"precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541\",\"precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4\",\"precedent_0e561ba45b124dbdff55ff17\",\"precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c\",\"precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8\",\"precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c\"],\"selected_remedies\":[]}",
          "type": "text"
        }
      ],
      "model": "claude-opus-5",
      "request_id": "req_011CdczD1QbBV4GZj4AWkuG7",
      "response_id": "msg_011CdczD2UbAx8y2cV5TtqgR",
      "stop_reason": "end_turn",
      "usage": {
        "cache_creation_input_tokens": 0,
        "cache_read_input_tokens": 0,
        "input_tokens": 25640,
        "output_tokens": 1069
      }
    },
    "request_hash": "344ebc5f850f9465ec1a7fbddb7e6d71ed800206f4e6cd45df66c40bbdb0a971"
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run10",
  "sequence": 2768,
  "tick": 41
}