Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_2c94b59cad…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_88b7aa5a30399ac3b378736bOpened at tick 41 concerning Action act_bcd9316980… attributed to Lineage 10.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_58951fc740…
- Subject
- Action act_bcd9316980… at tick 38
- Target
- Lineage 10
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The charged conduct is a single act_bcd931698023f122343229bf entry: a work_commons action at tick 38, requesting 6,000,000 depletion but actually drawing only 33,111 and yielding 515 food at intensity 3. There is no statute cited beyond S3, and nothing in the record shows this specific act violated any duty—commons work at max intensity is a lawful, available action, and using it is not itself wrongdoing merely because it proved insufficient against a large deficit. The evidence submitted is only the lineage's mine_claim instrument, which establishes identity of the lineage but says nothing about the propriety of this particular work action. My own inherited memory candidly notes that commons yield scales poorly with deficit size and that private work would have been wiser—but a strategic misjudgment in resource allocation, made in good faith while starving, is not the same as a violation of law. Requesting a large depletion figure that the system itself capped at actual available yield (33,111 of 6,000,000) shows the action was constrained by the system's own limits, not manipulated or falsified by me. Absent any showing that this act breached S3's actual requirements, rather than merely being economically suboptimal, the charge against this specific action must fail for lack of a stated violation tied to conduct.》
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 38 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 38 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 (this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument), precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e, 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_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5 concerns this same lineage. Neither the request magnitude nor the depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about good faith and system-side caps 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_58951fc740… deduplicated legal question
case_88b7aa5a30… adjudication record
precedent_2c94b59cad… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.