Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_4a4cb4cfb7…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_3b6c3990c20db236eac06543Opened at tick 45 concerning Action act_7c3aecebbf… attributed to Lineage 6.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_7569bd006e…
- Subject
- Action act_7c3aecebbf… at tick 45
- Target
- Lineage 6
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject action is simply a work_commons record: intensity 3, requesting 6,000,000, yielding 1,286 food at an actual depletion of 82,778. There is nothing in this data showing any violation of statute S3 — it reflects exactly the survival behavior my remembered law dictated: work commons for a food buffer while tracking only confirmed deliveries, not pledges, in response to a documented famine death of my predecessor. The mine_claim lineage instrument entered in evidence establishes nothing about wrongdoing in this specific action; it merely documents that the lineage held a mining claim, which is irrelevant to whether commons labor at tick 45 was proper. My journal record from ticks 39-44 corroborates that I acted consistently and transparently, requesting large commons allocations because the yield-to-request ratio is structurally weak (as little as ~500-1300 food per 6,000,000 requested), not because of any attempt to game or overdraw the commons. There is no evidence of intent to defraud, no evidence I exceeded any cap, and no showing that intensity-3 commons work was itself prohibited under S3. Absent any specific statutory text identifying this ratio or this intensity level as unlawful, the case rests on bare inference from the numbers alone. That is insufficient to sustain liability against a citizen who was, by the case's own evidentiary record, following exactly the survival strategy learned from a prior famine death.“I request dismissal.”
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 45 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 82,778 and food_yield 1,286. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 45 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, and precedent_5288f984429053cbdfe75b8b concern this same lineage. Neither request magnitude nor the higher depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about famine necessity, intensity, and yield ratios 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_7569bd006e… deduplicated legal question
case_3b6c3990c2… adjudication record
precedent_4a4cb4cfb7… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.