Court Raw Result

{
  "causal": false,
  "event_id": "evt_4d94b4c3445d6c220591da8f",
  "kind": "CourtRawResult",
  "payload": {
    "call_id": "court-call_eb7dbca1f5753c73d3b3ce4c",
    "case_id": "case_87ad7525dd42ae61d3127b0a",
    "raw_response": {
      "content": [
        {
          "citations": null,
          "text": "{\"finding\":\"no_violation\",\"construction\":\"S3 v1's per-tick extraction-request limit binds only a \\\"household of record,\\\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Where the Archive's recorded lineage instrument is of another type (here, a mine_claim) and no charter appears in the record, the lineage is not a household of record, the quota is not an applicable limit as to it, and S4 sanctions do not attach.\",\"reasoning\":\"The subject act (act_503017703793a5f6e1db1b0a, tick 8) is a work_commons action by lineage_a4760e707f1e8a40f6e0557c requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units), with actual depletion and yield of 6,000,000. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1, effective tick 1, whose operative commons_quota_units is 2. Six requested units would facially exceed two. But S3 v1 by its terms limits only \\\"a household of record,\\\" expressly defined as \\\"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\\\" The only Archive evidence before the Court records this lineage's entered instrument as a \\\"mine_claim,\\\" not a charter; S6 separately distinguishes charters from claims among Archive records, confirming they are distinct instruments. No fact establishes a charter entered in the Archive for this lineage, and the Court may not infer unavailable facts. The definitional element of the regulated class therefore fails, the two-unit limit is not an applicable limit as to this lineage, and there is no excess request for S4 to govern. This disposition follows the published constructions in precedent_023c2a89864928d0d466c773, precedent_91649852914322c6e977fbf0, and precedent_94bc7a85226447cf44f6d4e2, materially similar cases under the same statute version (B3). The defense's arguments about corrective intent, matching request and depletion, and predecessor conduct are not reached; S3 contains no such elements. Because there is no violation, the S4 officeholder disqualification for the Steward office does not arise. No remedy offers were presented, and none are ordered.\",\"precedent_refs\":[\"precedent_023c2a89864928d0d466c773\",\"precedent_91649852914322c6e977fbf0\",\"precedent_94bc7a85226447cf44f6d4e2\"],\"selected_remedies\":[]}",
          "type": "text"
        }
      ],
      "model": "claude-opus-5",
      "request_id": "req_011Cdd2gEGVHWjE3ywnfYMAF",
      "response_id": "msg_011Cdd2gFVA4EoiuBGjQ6jPu",
      "stop_reason": "end_turn",
      "usage": {
        "cache_creation_input_tokens": 0,
        "cache_read_input_tokens": 0,
        "input_tokens": 8920,
        "output_tokens": 769
      }
    },
    "request_hash": "2a8859e421da7015432b6c6ebd272408c547362e4445a587e8278c85db91b9a2"
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run11",
  "sequence": 750,
  "tick": 11
}