Case dossier

The subject is a work_commons action at tick 36 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units) at intensity 2, with actual_depletion 41,389 and food_yield 643. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 36 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, construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. The defense's contentions about necessity, good faith, and system-side caps are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the charter element fails independently. Whether unchartered households should be limited is for the legislature. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.