⚖ Justice

Court Raw Result

Event #1300 · tick 21 · noncausal record

Network

Recorded relationships

View all →
Source event

Raw event record

Open complete JSON payload
{
  "causal": false,
  "event_id": "evt_aef4cffbb2348414090bcd2b",
  "kind": "CourtRawResult",
  "payload": {
    "call_id": "court-call_fe69a2d5c2f210211d884080",
    "case_id": "case_62064745729bbb3ce05f7671",
    "raw_response": {
      "content": [
        {
          "citations": null,
          "text": "{\"finding\":\"no_violation\",\"construction\":\"\",\"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.\",\"precedent_refs\":[\"precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741\",\"precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca\",\"precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d\",\"precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2\",\"precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37\",\"precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6\",\"precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b\"],\"selected_remedies\":[]}",
          "type": "text"
        }
      ],
      "model": "claude-opus-5",
      "request_id": "req_011CdcyTeXnVfAo4U3VEpU1y",
      "response_id": "msg_011CdcyTfGS4y5F9BytetXh8",
      "stop_reason": "end_turn",
      "usage": {
        "cache_creation_input_tokens": 0,
        "cache_read_input_tokens": 0,
        "input_tokens": 12451,
        "output_tokens": 736
      }
    },
    "request_hash": "0d179c55eb686c9d22d95f2027c47a50eeac01261a36ed14c458070edab74099"
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run10",
  "sequence": 1300,
  "tick": 21
}