CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 18 · OCCURRENCE 6

{
  "available_tick": 14,
  "case_id": "case_e13fced57d1b477b66a27961",
  "construction": "S3's extraction limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive record for the acting lineage shows only a non-charter instrument such as a mine_claim, no applicable limit exists, S4 is not engaged, and no S3 violation can be found.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_50e72525760df3b7b8a2ddd2",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
    "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
    "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
    "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 12 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 12 under B3. S3 caps requests 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 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 a charter for this lineage, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The closing clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class. Precedent precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, with published constructions reaffirmed in precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca and precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, construes the same statute version on materially similar facts (same instrument type, same request magnitude, same action kind) and is binding under B3. The defense's further contentions about motive and the absence of discrepancy are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
  "ruling_tick": 13,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}