CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 33 · OCCURRENCE 13

{
  "available_tick": 31,
  "case_id": "case_4b0b6a11fc54ee9dae792553",
  "construction": null,
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_07d76178684c18c6c99acdaa",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_0e561ba45b124dbdff55ff17",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
    "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
    "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
    "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
    "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
    "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
    "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
    "precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541",
    "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
    "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 25 by lineage_1107efc4e5d0ba7b1e09402b requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 25 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. 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 and precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541 (same lineage, same mine_claim instrument) and others, construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. Under B8 the lineage bears responsibility for its predecessor's recorded acts, so the successor-life argument fails, and the filing is within the S5 limitation window; 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
}