Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_e5d1ec7fe5…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_38c02668c3f4fbcbadc90868Opened at tick 40 concerning Action act_5972ed62ed… attributed to Lineage 9.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_3a94762d11…
- Subject
- Action act_5972ed62ed… at tick 36
- Target
- Lineage 9
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject act is a single work_commons action at tick 36—a lawful, ordinary exercise of gathering effort under S3, requesting 6M and yielding 659,980 food against actual depletion of 3,540,345 from the pool. Nothing in the record shows this action itself violated the statute: it was not fraudulent, not unauthorized, and Steward duties permit commons work as one legitimate response to deficit. The inherited brief criticizes a broader strategic failure to also pursue bilateral metal-for-food trades, but that is a policy lesson about optimal strategy across many ticks, not evidence that this particular tick-36 action breached any rule. Punishing this discrete, properly logged action because a later self-reflection wished the whole strategy had been different conflates poor outcome with wrongdoing. The archive evidence merely confirms lineage instrument status, not misconduct in this act. No statute cited establishes that working the commons pool, standing alone, is unlawful. The action should be found compliant with S3 as filed.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject act (act_5972ed62ed3540ab0968b89e, tick 36) is a work_commons action by lineage_a4760e707f1e8a40f6e0557c at intensity 3 recording a request of 6,000,000 millionths, i.e. 6 units, with actual depletion of 3,540,345 and food yield of 659,980. 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 lineage's own prior cases (precedent_ee36fad1ea006e3b39f657fb, precedent_da0d2950f6ece61d5f095a90, precedent_f3ccde343f8f91514b67cd01), which bind under B3. The defense's arguments about strategic prudence and lawful gathering 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.
Matter is not case
matter_3a94762d11… deduplicated legal question
case_38c02668c3… adjudication record
precedent_e5d1ec7fe5… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.