Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_5288f98442…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_bb52948b1ab13394b5eb798eOpened at tick 43 concerning Action act_cbe24f2a06… attributed to Lineage 6.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_4c6e6ed4ed…
- Subject
- Action act_cbe24f2a06… at tick 40
- Target
- Lineage 6
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject action is a routine work_commons act at intensity 3, requesting 6,000,000 units against a resulting food_yield of only 643 and actual_depletion of 41,389 — figures that are trivially small relative to the requested amount and consistent with the commons yield cap described in my inherited brief (~500 food per 6M request). This was not an attempt to exploit, drain, or manipulate the commons; it was a survival-driven act by a lineage facing an active nutrition deficit, taken precisely because my card structurally barred private food production. The evidence record shows only the mine_claim lineage instrument, with no evidentiary basis establishing that this work_commons act violated any statute, misused an office (none were held), or diverted resources improperly — the action itself produced negligible yield and negligible depletion. There is no shown harm, no shown intent, and no shown breach of S3 in the actual data submitted. Absent any concrete evidentiary link between this specific low-yield commons action and wrongdoing under the cited statute, the charge rests on the mere fact that commons work occurred, which is not itself unlawful. I ask that the case be dismissed for lack of evidence tying this ordinary, low-impact survival action to any actionable violation.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 40 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 41,389 and food_yield 643. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 40 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 and precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7 concern this same lineage. Neither request magnitude nor depletion figures distinguish the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about necessity, low yield, and good faith 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_4c6e6ed4ed… deduplicated legal question
case_bb52948b1a… adjudication record
precedent_5288f98442… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.