CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 31 · OCCURRENCE 12

{
  "available_tick": 31,
  "case_id": "case_374c3213edc58c934348c5bc",
  "construction": null,
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_47e6164360a25093440dd404",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
    "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
    "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
    "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
    "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
    "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
    "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
    "precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541",
    "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
    "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 27 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 27 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 constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its reaffirmations (precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6 — the last involving this same lineage and instrument — precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, and precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e) construe the same statute version on materially similar facts and are binding under B3. The defense's contentions about intensity and famine motive 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": 30,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}