CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 50 · OCCURRENCE 11

{
  "available_tick": 31,
  "case_id": "case_05b986ecf62be2820e5e06cf",
  "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 regardless of the magnitude of the request.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_6d78fc98a16d658ef2766495",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
    "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
    "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
    "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
    "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
    "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
    "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
    "precedent_b89ee380570c4cb439f05541",
    "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
    "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 30 by lineage_d042259e5d23dda187fad94a 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 30 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 sole 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, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, and precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e — several involving this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument — construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. The larger request magnitude (6 rather than 4 units) does not distinguish the cases, since the charter element fails independently of magnitude. The defense's contentions about necessity and motive are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the outcome follows regardless. Whether unchartered households should be limited is a matter for the legislature. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
  "ruling_tick": 30,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}