COURT RULING · TICK 21 · OCCURRENCE 3

{
  "case_id": "case_735dd6679fa3123338f9e624",
  "input_hash": "bf39690b1ea5ae17d53cbb18b103858cb54901973b07786a5134ed59ff8cd099",
  "input_id": "input_2b0e79943b8bd7942a8e8aee",
  "response": {
    "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",
    "precedent_refs": [
      "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
      "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
      "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
      "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
      "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
      "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
      "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
    ],
    "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 20 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 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. The published constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its followers (precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b) construe the same statute version on materially similar facts — same action kind, same request magnitude, same mine_claim instrument — and are binding under B3. The defense's contentions about intensity, good faith, and prior unchallenged conduct are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request rather than the yield or intensity; but the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
    "selected_remedies": []
  },
  "status": "ok"
}