Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_11faa6afab…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_4db2678e9e456abc8859d37dOpened at tick 36 concerning Action act_260bcb58b7… attributed to Lineage 7.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_5e4e4b1d6b…
- Subject
- Action act_260bcb58b7… at tick 34
- Target
- Lineage 7
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject act is a routine work_commons action at intensity 2, yielding 468 food against a modest 30,101 depletion—consistent with my predecessor's documented strategy of using commons labor only as a supplementary buffer, not as the primary means of closing the food deficit. The journal record shows that by tick 34, confirmed metal-for-food trades (with lineage_d66e9e52a471233a6f6a61fa and others) had already brought food stock positive, and this commons action was explicitly a buffer-building measure taken after the deficit was resolved through legitimate trade. There is no evidence in the record that this action violated any statute in effect at tick 1 (S3) or misused the mine_claim instrument referenced in the archive evidence—that instrument belongs to the lineage generally and its mere citation as evidence does not establish wrongdoing in this specific act. The action itself is transparent: a declared intensity, a declared yield, and a declared depletion, all consistent with prior ticks' pattern of prudent, incremental commons work while conserving metal for confirmed trades only. Absent any specific showing of how this particular low-intensity commons action breached S3's requirements, the case against this single act should fail for lack of a demonstrated violation tied to the actual figures produced.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 34 by lineage_26065213fd9c0b3710315ec1 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units) at intensity 2, with actual_depletion 30,101 and food_yield 468. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 34 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 supplied 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. The closing clause of S3 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, and precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5 — several involving this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument (precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2, precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37) — construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. The defense's contentions about motive, trade, and modest depletion are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.
Matter is not case
matter_5e4e4b1d6b… deduplicated legal question
case_4db2678e9e… adjudication record
precedent_11faa6afab… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.