CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 25 · OCCURRENCE 2

{
  "available_tick": 10,
  "case_id": "case_33345770894870c0d5c0454f",
  "construction": null,
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_6ce52e1ecfac4b2be460326d",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
  "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.",
  "ruling_tick": 9,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}