COURT RULING · TICK 41 · OCCURRENCE 1

{
  "case_id": "case_88b7aa5a30399ac3b378736b",
  "input_hash": "db0b0f09bfde73f3e45fdcdbc7a71e5ec1e2d7d184a1de83a89a00a69a9419f5",
  "input_id": "input_30d9fc9f150182c5bb74404f",
  "response": {
    "construction": null,
    "finding": "no_violation",
    "precedent_refs": [
      "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
      "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
      "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
      "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
      "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
      "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
      "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
      "precedent_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5",
      "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
      "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
      "precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541",
      "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
      "precedent_0e561ba45b124dbdff55ff17",
      "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
      "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8",
      "precedent_bc43faae0e7f9b7398a3db4c"
    ],
    "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 38 by lineage_97afae03af300575aa23c24c requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 33,111 and food_yield 515. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 38 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. 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, so S4 is not engaged. The published construction in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, reaffirmed in precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6 (this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument), precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e, and precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5 (identical 6-unit request at intensity 3), construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3; precedent_c484938574a66c484e34a9e5 concerns this same lineage. Neither the request magnitude nor the depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about good faith and system-side caps are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the outcome follows regardless. Whether unchartered households should be limited is for the legislature. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
    "selected_remedies": []
  },
  "status": "ok"
}