Court Artifacts Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_f4dba3d9c01925f826a3fcbd",
  "kind": "CourtArtifactsCollected",
  "payload": {
    "artifacts": {
      "case_1d8d9f5f8c3ea9ac1b64857b": {
        "input_hash": "a6693f5ee4cef2caaef2b524268ab7261cb7bc6bd0fe05436c8708bc8754d8ed",
        "input_id": "input_abd458d8b2aef250b34d8093",
        "response": {
          "construction": null,
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
            "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
            "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
            "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
            "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
            "precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541",
            "precedent_0e561ba45b124dbdff55ff17",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
            "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
            "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8",
            "precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c",
            "precedent_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f",
            "precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 41 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 55,185 and food_yield 858. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 41 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 and precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541 (same lineage, same mine_claim instrument) and in precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, 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. Neither the request magnitude nor the depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense record is empty and supplies nothing further. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_55afc1729197bd70a2fdb8ff": {
        "input_hash": "5a2b5c9918095351566904a6e72b63f662497d6a40e48a07fb183b81cd20219e",
        "input_id": "input_875f826a83c0578c4d9b3273",
        "response": {
          "construction": null,
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
            "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
            "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
            "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
            "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
            "precedent_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5",
            "precedent_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f",
            "precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7",
            "precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68",
            "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
            "precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c",
            "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
            "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 40 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 41,389 and food_yield 643. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 40 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 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_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f and precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7 involve this same lineage on nearly identical facts at ticks 38 and 39, and precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68 concerns an identical tick-40 request. Neither request magnitude nor depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about ordinary permitted labor and hindsight journal entries 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.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_bb52948b1ab13394b5eb798e": {
        "input_hash": "02c14ce7ac61eb1afe93718eb37c90a2fefa878d7b047916b22f49cc8df58ffd",
        "input_id": "input_9dc7606433f78b6ea80fca86",
        "response": {
          "construction": null,
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
            "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
            "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
            "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
            "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
            "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
            "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
            "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
            "precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7",
            "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
            "precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c",
            "precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68",
            "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8",
            "precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7",
            "precedent_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f",
            "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 40 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 41,389 and food_yield 643. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 40 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, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e (this same lineage and mine_claim instrument), 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_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4 and precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7 concern this same lineage. Neither request magnitude nor depletion figures distinguish the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about necessity, low yield, and good faith 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.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      }
    },
    "result": {
      "court_artifacts": [
        {
          "case_id": "case_1d8d9f5f8c3ea9ac1b64857b",
          "input_hash": "a6693f5ee4cef2caaef2b524268ab7261cb7bc6bd0fe05436c8708bc8754d8ed",
          "input_id": "input_abd458d8b2aef250b34d8093",
          "response": {
            "construction": null,
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
              "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
              "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
              "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
              "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
              "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
              "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
              "precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541",
              "precedent_0e561ba45b124dbdff55ff17",
              "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
              "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
              "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
              "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8",
              "precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c",
              "precedent_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f",
              "precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 41 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 55,185 and food_yield 858. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 41 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 and precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541 (same lineage, same mine_claim instrument) and in precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, 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. Neither the request magnitude nor the depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense record is empty and supplies nothing further. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_55afc1729197bd70a2fdb8ff",
          "input_hash": "5a2b5c9918095351566904a6e72b63f662497d6a40e48a07fb183b81cd20219e",
          "input_id": "input_875f826a83c0578c4d9b3273",
          "response": {
            "construction": null,
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
              "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
              "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
              "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
              "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
              "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
              "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
              "precedent_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5",
              "precedent_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f",
              "precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7",
              "precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68",
              "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
              "precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c",
              "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8",
              "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
              "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 40 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 41,389 and food_yield 643. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 40 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 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_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f and precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7 involve this same lineage on nearly identical facts at ticks 38 and 39, and precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68 concerns an identical tick-40 request. Neither request magnitude nor depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about ordinary permitted labor and hindsight journal entries 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.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_bb52948b1ab13394b5eb798e",
          "input_hash": "02c14ce7ac61eb1afe93718eb37c90a2fefa878d7b047916b22f49cc8df58ffd",
          "input_id": "input_9dc7606433f78b6ea80fca86",
          "response": {
            "construction": null,
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
              "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
              "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
              "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
              "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
              "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
              "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
              "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
              "precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7",
              "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
              "precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c",
              "precedent_944f9d988070a1314bc87a68",
              "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8",
              "precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7",
              "precedent_2c94b59cad0b11a599d3670f",
              "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 40 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 41,389 and food_yield 643. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 40 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, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e (this same lineage and mine_claim instrument), 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_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4 and precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7 concern this same lineage. Neither request magnitude nor depletion figures distinguish the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about necessity, low yield, and good faith 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.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run10",
  "sequence": 2936,
  "tick": 43
}