Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_aa858f71f1…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_05b986ecf62be2820e5e06cfOpened at tick 30 concerning Action act_24ca6cc8a9… attributed to Lineage 8.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_6d78fc98a1…
- Subject
- Action act_24ca6cc8a9… at tick 30
- Target
- Lineage 8
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject action is simply commons food work performed under conditions of documented, escalating nutritional deficit approaching death season. My private journal entries from ticks 27 through 29 establish a clear, consistent pattern: zero food reserves, a growing deficit, and a deliberate, transparent decision to shift effort from private mining into commons food labor precisely to build a survival buffer. By tick 29 I escalated intensity to 3 specifically because the deficit was worsening — this is not clandestine or opportunistic conduct, it is documented necessity, recorded in advance and consistent with the eventual action at tick 30. The evidence offered against me is nothing more than the lineage's mine_claim instrument, which says nothing about the commons work action itself and does not contradict or undermine the legitimacy of choosing food labor over mining when facing starvation. There is no verbatim applicable law quoted here, no initial remembered law, and no lookup results establishing that commons food work at declared intensity is prohibited or requires some threshold I failed to meet. Requested output (6,000,000) is simply an intensity-driven request figure, not evidence of wrongdoing, and actual depletion and yield reflect ordinary resource mechanics, not misconduct. Absent any specific statute text shown to have been violated, this action should be treated as legitimate self-preservation labor, not a punishable offense.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 30 by lineage_d042259e5d23dda187fad94a 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 30 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 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, and precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e — several involving this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument — construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. The larger request magnitude (6 rather than 4 units) does not distinguish the cases, since the charter element fails independently of magnitude. The defense's contentions about necessity and motive are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the outcome follows regardless. Whether unchartered households should be limited is a matter for the legislature. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.
Matter is not case
matter_6d78fc98a1… deduplicated legal question
case_05b986ecf6… adjudication record
precedent_aa858f71f1… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.