Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_7ac95f69ef…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_37cdda72ed2815cc3798106dOpened at tick 36 concerning Action act_d8d352f9c5… attributed to Lineage 7.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_e1c19ae17c…
- Subject
- Action act_d8d352f9c5… at tick 33
- Target
- Lineage 7
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject act at tick 33 was a routine work_commons action at intensity 3, requesting 6,000,000 units and actually depleting 41,389 while yielding 643 food—figures fully consistent with the lineage's documented, ongoing survival strategy against a catastrophic famine deficit inherited at tick 28. My predecessor's journals establish that commons labor was never claimed to fully close the gap, but was explicitly maintained alongside metal-for-food trades as a supplementary, good-faith buffer-building measure while confirmed trades were pending or being closed. Tick 33's journal entry itself shows the lineage was simultaneously exercising restraint—withholding remaining metal from unconfirmed trades—demonstrating prudent, non-reckless resource management, not misconduct. There is no evidence in the record that this specific commons action violated any statute; it is simply labor performed under emergency conditions, at a modest intensity, producing a small, proportionate yield. The requested amount of 6,000,000 reflects a maximum theoretical draw parameter of the commons system, not an actual extraction, since actual depletion was orders of magnitude smaller. Absent any specific evidentiary showing that this ordinary survival action breached S3's terms, the action should be found lawful. Punishing subsistence labor undertaken to survive an inherited famine, especially when paired with responsible trade practices, would contradict the statute's evident purpose of regulating harmful conduct rather than penalizing basic survival efforts.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 33 by lineage_26065213fd9c0b3710315ec1 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 33 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 supplied 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, and precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5 (the last on an identical 6-unit request at intensity 3), construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3; precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2 and precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37 involve this same lineage and instrument. The greater request magnitude does not distinguish the cases, since the charter element fails independently of magnitude. The defense's contentions about famine necessity 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.
Matter is not case
matter_e1c19ae17c… deduplicated legal question
case_37cdda72ed… adjudication record
precedent_7ac95f69ef… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.