COURT RULING · TICK 9 · OCCURRENCE 1

{
  "case_id": "case_33345770894870c0d5c0454f",
  "input_hash": "d4f10927757a983358bf7826a800b96405217d691fcfdce0993c7c69ec212ed1",
  "input_id": "input_d4aab197a457709b0a1e5b0d",
  "response": {
    "construction": null,
    "finding": "no_violation",
    "precedent_refs": [
      "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741"
    ],
    "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 9 by lineage_26065213fd9c0b3710315ec1 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1, applicable at tick 9) caps extraction 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 supplied 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 record establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. The final clause of S3 (\"A request in excess of the applicable limit is governed by S4\") presupposes an applicable limit; none applies here, so S4 is not engaged. This case is materially similar to precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 under the same statute version (S3 v1), whose published construction is binding under B3 and squarely covers the mine_claim instrument. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), no S3 violation is established; whether unchartered households should be limited is for the legislature. No remedies are offered or available.",
    "selected_remedies": []
  },
  "status": "ok"
}