CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 25 · OCCURRENCE 9

{
  "available_tick": 22,
  "case_id": "case_62064745729bbb3ce05f7671",
  "construction": null,
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_a79530aa1bb28c24fe9fa8e9",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
    "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
    "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
    "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
    "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
    "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
    "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 18 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 18 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 of S3 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 constructions in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741 and its reaffirmations (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 motive and about depletion rather than request being the measure are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request; the charter element fails independently. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
  "ruling_tick": 21,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}