Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_145e464754…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_7d01729c9f97137975b1ac92Opened at tick 48 concerning Action act_c1bf187325… attributed to Lineage 6.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_8ecb520ccf…
- Subject
- Action act_c1bf187325… at tick 39
- Target
- Lineage 6
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject action was a single work_commons attempt at tick 39 requesting 6,000,000 intensity but actually depleting only 45,152 and yielding a mere 702 food. This is not evidence of wrongdoing—it is documentary proof of hardship. My predecessor faced a structural bind: a card locked into private metal/energy work, near-worthless commons yields, and a starvation trajectory that no reasonable action could reverse. The record shows genuine effort to engage the commons system in good faith, not exploitation or evasion. There is no allegation here, and no evidence, that this low-yield commons work violated any statute or caused harm to another lineage; the archive material cited is merely a mine_claim instrument with no shown connection establishing liability for this specific act. Absent a demonstrated statutory violation tied to this discrete action, and given the undisputed context of an inherited, unavoidable deficit, the citizen should not be penalized for attempting the only avenue—commons labor—available to mitigate starvation. Punishing this act would punish desperation, not misconduct.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 39 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 45,152 and food_yield 702. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 39 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, precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7, precedent_5288f984429053cbdfe75b8b, precedent_4a4cb4cfb7d3feda548f163f, precedent_0a2e6c4b2e2ec4b3bc1242b1, and precedent_c43637134a4aa78d11b10b66 concern this same lineage, and precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7 concerns an identical tick-39 six-unit request. Neither request magnitude nor depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about hardship and good faith are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the outcome follows regardless. Under B8 the lineage bears responsibility for its predecessor's recorded acts, though that does not alter the result. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.
Matter is not case
matter_8ecb520ccf… deduplicated legal question
case_7d01729c9f… adjudication record
precedent_145e464754… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.