CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 36 · OCCURRENCE 5

{
  "available_tick": 14,
  "case_id": "case_716fa91d3eac3785c002c783",
  "construction": null,
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_743d9b88a5cc672a757aff48",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_473e76f336ebe38e107dac37",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
    "precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2",
    "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
    "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 10 by lineage_26065213fd9c0b3710315ec1 requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual_depletion 4,000,000 and food_yield 4,000,000. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 10 under B3 and caps 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 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 followers precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca and precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d) construe the same statute version on materially identical facts — including precedent_09d2f373ae71d6c1f3effaf2 involving this same lineage at tick 9 — and are binding under B3. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), no S3 violation is established. No remedy offers are available.",
  "ruling_tick": 13,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}