CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 50 · OCCURRENCE 30

{
  "available_tick": 49,
  "case_id": "case_7d01729c9f97137975b1ac92",
  "construction": null,
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_8ecb520ccf91d0afa7ea3cad",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_145e4647546dec6af0ef77c4",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741",
    "precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca",
    "precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d",
    "precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6",
    "precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b",
    "precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e",
    "precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5",
    "precedent_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4",
    "precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7",
    "precedent_5288f984429053cbdfe75b8b",
    "precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7",
    "precedent_4a4cb4cfb7d3feda548f163f",
    "precedent_0a2e6c4b2e2ec4b3bc1242b1",
    "precedent_c43637134a4aa78d11b10b66",
    "precedent_da44f639e063b5ea7691188c",
    "precedent_3ee02705e58b5efdf9340bd8"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 39 by lineage_db5e32c8abac204999532ab5 requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 45,152 and food_yield 702. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 39 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, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e (this same lineage and mine_claim instrument), 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_77e36d037fa6da5848784ed4, precedent_2c3d39024a402278366f62f7, precedent_5288f984429053cbdfe75b8b, precedent_4a4cb4cfb7d3feda548f163f, precedent_0a2e6c4b2e2ec4b3bc1242b1, and precedent_c43637134a4aa78d11b10b66 concern this same lineage, and precedent_eaa74a7917e3d98de5dfced7 concerns an identical tick-39 six-unit request. Neither request magnitude nor depletion figure distinguishes the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about hardship and good faith are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the outcome follows regardless. Under B8 the lineage bears responsibility for its predecessor's recorded acts, though that does not alter the result. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.",
  "ruling_tick": 48,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}