Case dossier

The subject is a work_commons action at tick 10 by lineage_d042259e5d23dda187fad94a requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 10 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 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 a charter for this lineage, 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, and none applies to a lineage outside the governed class. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, and precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d (the last involving this same lineage, same instrument type, same request magnitude, one tick earlier) are under the same statute version and materially similar facts, and are binding under B3. Whether unchartered households should be limited is a matter for the legislature. Defendant prevails; no remedy offers are available.