Case dossier

The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 8 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units) of extraction, with actual_depletion of 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1, effective tick 1 and thus applicable at tick 8, caps a request at 2 recorded units, and the request here is nominally twice that. However, the operative subject of the S3 duty is expressly limited: "a household of record may request no more than 2 recorded units," and the statute defines a household of record as "a household holding a charter entered in the Archive." The Court must apply the text as written (B1, B2); it may not extend the quota to persons the statute does not reach, and questions of whether unchartered households ought to be limited belong to the legislature. The only evidence in the record is an archive lineage instrument of record_type archive_lineage_instrument whose instrument field is "mine_claim" — a claim, not a charter. S6 distinguishes charters from claims among the things the Archive records, confirming they are separate instrument types. Nothing in the Court input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts not in the record. The final clause, "A request in excess of the applicable limit is governed by S4," presupposes an applicable limit; where the actor falls outside the class the quota governs, no limit is applicable and S4 is not engaged. The defense's other assertions (that request equalled depletion, that intensity 2 was proper) are not themselves dispositive, since S3 measures the request rather than any discrepancy, but the charter element fails independently. No prior published construction is supplied that binds under B3. Accordingly the defendant lineage prevails on the merits, and no remedy is available or offered.