Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_3f0f64c6d0…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_fd53c98fc1e0189f698367d8Opened at tick 44 concerning Action act_c8bfc70c15… attributed to Lineage 10.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_091c96665c…
- Subject
- Action act_c8bfc70c15… at tick 37
- Target
- Lineage 10
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject act is a single commons work request at tick 37, intensity 3, yielding 643 food against a 6,000,000 request. Nothing in the record shows this act was unlawful or improperly performed: it was a legitimate use of the commons work mechanism, executed at the intensity chosen, producing whatever output that mechanism generated. The catastrophic ratio between request and yield reflects the commons system's inherent low productivity, not any wrongdoing by the actor. The predecessor's brief and the life's own journals show a diligent effort to correct course—mining metal for leverage, initiating trades with multiple lineages, reciprocating gifts—precisely because the actor understood commons work alone was insufficient. That awareness, and the attempt to supplement it, undercuts any claim of negligence or misconduct in performing this specific act. A poor yield from a low-output system is not an offense. There is no evidence tying this action to any statute violation beyond the mere fact that food was scarce. Scarcity of outcome is not proof of culpable conduct. This action should not be treated as an actionable violation.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject act (act_c8bfc70c15fa725a040837c2, tick 37) is a work_commons action by lineage_d886589df751f87b703e6955 at intensity 3 recording a request of 6,000,000 millionths, i.e. 6 units, with actual depletion of 41,389 and food yield of 643. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1, effective tick 1, whose operative commons_quota_units is 2; six requested units facially exceed two. But S3 v1 imposes the limit only on "a household of record," expressly defined as "a household holding a charter entered in the Archive." The only Archive evidence before the Court is the lineage instrument record for this lineage showing instrument type "mine_claim" entered in the Archive. S6 separately lists charters and claims among the records the Archive keeps, confirming they are distinct instruments. No record fact establishes a charter for this lineage, and the Court may not infer unavailable facts. The household-of-record element therefore fails, there is no excess request for S4 to govern, and no sanction attaches. This matter is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version, including this same lineage's prior cases (precedent_94bc7a85226447cf44f6d4e2, precedent_707767b2e2b8ab89b1d037e4, precedent_6f530701ef830b4343e2a1be, precedent_90de0421cf238747db42b73b, precedent_cec04017e39775fe4bd70b72, precedent_d83d55ce2fdae85a764fa789, precedent_90930d49324377f9c01b14bf), which bind under B3. The defense's arguments about commons productivity, diligence, and corrective intent are not reached; S3 contains no such elements. The action record lists no offices, so no S4 disqualification arises. No remedy offers were presented, and none are ordered.
Matter is not case
matter_091c96665c… deduplicated legal question
case_fd53c98fc1… adjudication record
precedent_3f0f64c6d0… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.