CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 29 · OCCURRENCE 9

{
  "available_tick": 20,
  "case_id": "case_fb5c583ba0d41edf20b717fb",
  "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 a mine_claim rather than a charter, and no other record fact establishes a charter, the lineage is not a household of record, the two-unit limit is not an applicable limit as to it, and S4 sanctions do not attach.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_731ea9ff1c6f1b2a8e7a73c4",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_707767b2e2b8ab89b1d037e4",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_94bc7a85226447cf44f6d4e2",
    "precedent_023c2a89864928d0d466c773",
    "precedent_91649852914322c6e977fbf0",
    "precedent_ee36fad1ea006e3b39f657fb",
    "precedent_fc98f4424c1b37ef57d33721",
    "precedent_1f34635cdd493a31f3742bdf"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject act (act_672192fe57c961577fc0060e, tick 15) is a work_commons action by lineage_d886589df751f87b703e6955 recording a request of 4,000,000 millionths (4 units), with actual depletion and yield of 4,000,000, against S3 v1's operative commons_quota_units of 2. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1, effective tick 1. Facially four units 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 for this lineage recording instrument type \"mine_claim,\" not a charter; S6 separately lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records, confirming they are different instruments. No fact in the record 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, there is no excess request for S4 to govern, and no sanction attaches. This disposition is compelled by the published constructions in materially similar cases under the same statute version, including the same lineage's prior case (precedent_94bc7a85226447cf44f6d4e2), which bind under B3. The defense's arguments about corrective intent, matching request and depletion, and predecessor conduct are not reached; S3 contains no such elements. The lineage holds no offices, so no S4 disqualification arises, and no remedy offers were presented.",
  "ruling_tick": 19,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}