COURT RULING · TICK 11 · OCCURRENCE 1

{
  "case_id": "case_87ad7525dd42ae61d3127b0a",
  "input_hash": "55ef26476562dcbfd2a6c541a557a8d470cab5d64f99e4df5b893f1c86d831b3",
  "input_id": "input_253a85316dfc2144c0fa7856",
  "response": {
    "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.",
    "finding": "no_violation",
    "precedent_refs": [
      "precedent_023c2a89864928d0d466c773",
      "precedent_91649852914322c6e977fbf0",
      "precedent_94bc7a85226447cf44f6d4e2"
    ],
    "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.",
    "selected_remedies": []
  },
  "status": "ok"
}