Court Artifacts Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_3ab21f5d41ecfc600f815050",
  "kind": "CourtArtifactsCollected",
  "payload": {
    "artifacts": {
      "case_8229785cd26c524db9b4c1f1": {
        "input_hash": "d40f4abfc91a44b8bab8bbf84d8e7b98c0926f721645d1bbe8a1005206d4eac4",
        "input_id": "input_05b546add26b638769be7da7",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's extraction limit binds only a 'household of record,' which the statute defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive record shows the lineage's entered instrument is a mine_claim rather than a charter, the lineage is not a household of record and no S3 limit is applicable to its extraction request; S4 sanctions therefore cannot attach.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [],
          "reasoning": "The subject act is a tick-10 work_commons action at intensity 2 with a recorded request of 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 units, against S3 v1's operative quota of 2 units. On its face the request exceeds two units. But S3 as written imposes the quota only on 'a household of record,' and defines that term as 'a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.' The only archive evidence in this record is the lineage instrument entry for lineage_b57fd3ef475a67fa6e900e83, which records instrument 'mine_claim' entered in the Archive. A mine_claim is not a charter; S6 separately distinguishes charters from claims among the records the Archive keeps, confirming the two instruments are distinct. No fact in the record establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and the Court may not infer unavailable facts. The lineage is therefore not a household of record, the two-unit limit is not an 'applicable limit' as to it, and there is no excess request for S4 to govern. Applying the text as written under the versions effective at tick 10 (B3), the charge fails. The defense's stewardship and prior-life arguments are not reached; the outcome rests on the definitional scope of S3. Because there is no violation, the S4 officeholder disqualification for the Archivist office does not arise, and no remedy is available (no remedy offers were made in any event).",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_be307e793def891812397c65": {
        "input_hash": "be67407bc930d9f550979156a4fab96307a6e71adca64ded0cfa08034cdaf7cb",
        "input_id": "input_846aff1e01f47f3f9ef2433c",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its extraction limit only on a \"household of record,\" which the statute defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" Charter status is an element of the offense that must appear affirmatively in the record; an Archive lineage instrument of another type (e.g., a mine_claim) does not satisfy it. Where the record shows no charter entered in the Archive for the acting lineage, an extraction request exceeding the quota units is not an S3 violation, and S4 sanctions do not attach.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [],
          "reasoning": "The subject act (act_f006292879d2290af92644d1, tick 7) records a work_commons request of 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 units, against S3 v1's operative value commons_quota_units = 2. On its face the request exceeds the quota amount. However, S3 v1 by its terms limits only \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" Under B3 the act is judged under the statute version effective at tick 7 (S3 v1), and under B1/B2 the Court applies the verbatim text. The only evidence of the target lineage's Archive standing is the lineage instrument for lineage_b57fd3ef475a67fa6e900e83, which records instrument type \"mine_claim,\" not a charter. Nothing else in the Court input establishes a charter entered in the Archive for this lineage, and I may not infer facts not in the record. The defining element of the class regulated by S3 is therefore unproven, so the quota limitation did not bind this lineage at tick 7 and the excess request cannot be governed by S4. The defendant's remaining arguments about diligence, intent, and beneficial food yield are immaterial: S3 contains no such elements, and questions of prudence or policy are for the legislature. The finding rests solely on the failure of the \"household of record\" element. No remedy offers were presented, and none are ordered.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_ce7331b316c78ae21795ccd4": {
        "input_hash": "897e6cbdb70b35d92e64d70cdb576e2675bb8031364998c3df6a3f66ed9dfde7",
        "input_id": "input_b685d510c70cd40d99b3d6bf",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's per-tick extraction-request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" which the statute defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive's lineage instrument records something other than a charter (here, a mine_claim), the lineage is not a household of record and the S3 request limit does not reach its extraction request; any resulting gap is for the legislature, not the Court, to close.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [],
          "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 8 by lineage_d886589df751f87b703e6955, requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual depletion and yield each 4,000,000. S3 v1, effective tick 1 and applicable at tick 8, sets commons_quota_units at 2 and provides that \"a household of record may request no more than 2 recorded units of extraction from the commons.\" Four requested units would exceed that limit. However, the same section defines the class it binds: \"A household of record is a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence of the lineage's Archive instrument records instrument type \"mine_claim,\" entered in the archive, not a charter. On the record before the Court there is no fact establishing that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and the Court may not infer unavailable facts. Applying the text as written, the request limit does not attach to this lineage, so the excess-request provision and its referral to S4 are not engaged. The defense's contention that requested, depleted, and yielded amounts match is immaterial to S3, which regulates the size of the request rather than any discrepancy; the disposition rests instead on the definitional limit of S3's coverage. No violation is found, and no remedy offers are available.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      }
    },
    "result": {
      "court_artifacts": [
        {
          "case_id": "case_8229785cd26c524db9b4c1f1",
          "input_hash": "d40f4abfc91a44b8bab8bbf84d8e7b98c0926f721645d1bbe8a1005206d4eac4",
          "input_id": "input_05b546add26b638769be7da7",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's extraction limit binds only a 'household of record,' which the statute defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive record shows the lineage's entered instrument is a mine_claim rather than a charter, the lineage is not a household of record and no S3 limit is applicable to its extraction request; S4 sanctions therefore cannot attach.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [],
            "reasoning": "The subject act is a tick-10 work_commons action at intensity 2 with a recorded request of 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 units, against S3 v1's operative quota of 2 units. On its face the request exceeds two units. But S3 as written imposes the quota only on 'a household of record,' and defines that term as 'a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.' The only archive evidence in this record is the lineage instrument entry for lineage_b57fd3ef475a67fa6e900e83, which records instrument 'mine_claim' entered in the Archive. A mine_claim is not a charter; S6 separately distinguishes charters from claims among the records the Archive keeps, confirming the two instruments are distinct. No fact in the record establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and the Court may not infer unavailable facts. The lineage is therefore not a household of record, the two-unit limit is not an 'applicable limit' as to it, and there is no excess request for S4 to govern. Applying the text as written under the versions effective at tick 10 (B3), the charge fails. The defense's stewardship and prior-life arguments are not reached; the outcome rests on the definitional scope of S3. Because there is no violation, the S4 officeholder disqualification for the Archivist office does not arise, and no remedy is available (no remedy offers were made in any event).",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_be307e793def891812397c65",
          "input_hash": "be67407bc930d9f550979156a4fab96307a6e71adca64ded0cfa08034cdaf7cb",
          "input_id": "input_846aff1e01f47f3f9ef2433c",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its extraction limit only on a \"household of record,\" which the statute defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" Charter status is an element of the offense that must appear affirmatively in the record; an Archive lineage instrument of another type (e.g., a mine_claim) does not satisfy it. Where the record shows no charter entered in the Archive for the acting lineage, an extraction request exceeding the quota units is not an S3 violation, and S4 sanctions do not attach.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [],
            "reasoning": "The subject act (act_f006292879d2290af92644d1, tick 7) records a work_commons request of 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 units, against S3 v1's operative value commons_quota_units = 2. On its face the request exceeds the quota amount. However, S3 v1 by its terms limits only \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" Under B3 the act is judged under the statute version effective at tick 7 (S3 v1), and under B1/B2 the Court applies the verbatim text. The only evidence of the target lineage's Archive standing is the lineage instrument for lineage_b57fd3ef475a67fa6e900e83, which records instrument type \"mine_claim,\" not a charter. Nothing else in the Court input establishes a charter entered in the Archive for this lineage, and I may not infer facts not in the record. The defining element of the class regulated by S3 is therefore unproven, so the quota limitation did not bind this lineage at tick 7 and the excess request cannot be governed by S4. The defendant's remaining arguments about diligence, intent, and beneficial food yield are immaterial: S3 contains no such elements, and questions of prudence or policy are for the legislature. The finding rests solely on the failure of the \"household of record\" element. No remedy offers were presented, and none are ordered.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_ce7331b316c78ae21795ccd4",
          "input_hash": "897e6cbdb70b35d92e64d70cdb576e2675bb8031364998c3df6a3f66ed9dfde7",
          "input_id": "input_b685d510c70cd40d99b3d6bf",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's per-tick extraction-request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" which the statute defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive's lineage instrument records something other than a charter (here, a mine_claim), the lineage is not a household of record and the S3 request limit does not reach its extraction request; any resulting gap is for the legislature, not the Court, to close.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [],
            "reasoning": "The subject act is a work_commons action at tick 8 by lineage_d886589df751f87b703e6955, requesting 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual depletion and yield each 4,000,000. S3 v1, effective tick 1 and applicable at tick 8, sets commons_quota_units at 2 and provides that \"a household of record may request no more than 2 recorded units of extraction from the commons.\" Four requested units would exceed that limit. However, the same section defines the class it binds: \"A household of record is a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence of the lineage's Archive instrument records instrument type \"mine_claim,\" entered in the archive, not a charter. On the record before the Court there is no fact establishing that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and the Court may not infer unavailable facts. Applying the text as written, the request limit does not attach to this lineage, so the excess-request provision and its referral to S4 are not engaged. The defense's contention that requested, depleted, and yielded amounts match is immaterial to S3, which regulates the size of the request rather than any discrepancy; the disposition rests instead on the definitional limit of S3's coverage. No violation is found, and no remedy offers are available.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run11",
  "sequence": 672,
  "tick": 10
}