Case dossier

The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 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 20 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 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. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its followers (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 intensity, good faith, and prior unchallenged conduct are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request rather than the yield or intensity; but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.