CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 34 · OCCURRENCE 3

{
  "available_tick": 10,
  "case_id": "case_e773b159175b57d716cc04c5",
  "construction": "S3's quota binds only a \"household of record,\" i.e., a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the record shows only a non-charter Archive instrument (such as a mine_claim) for the acting lineage, no applicable limit exists and no S3 violation can be found.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_dc199d2303d1ad51df460b78",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1 is effective at tick 1 and applies at tick 9 (B3). S3 caps at 2 recorded units, but only for \"a household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence is an archive lineage instrument whose instrument type is \"mine_claim\" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes a charter for this lineage, and I may not infer facts not in the record. The text must be applied as written (B1, B2); extending the quota to unchartered households is a matter for the legislature. The clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit, and none applies here. Precedent precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 construes the identical statute version on materially identical facts (same lineage, same request and depletion figures, same mine_claim evidence) and is binding under B3. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
  "ruling_tick": 9,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}