Court Artifacts Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_447bbe8e936dc172641d4f6a",
  "kind": "CourtArtifactsCollected",
  "payload": {
    "artifacts": {
      "case_3d3d261271ee4032a91a3502": {
        "input_hash": "bf65b2bc43852b948cdcaa6cbfd0110957faf5822ba8d3f269aa61718d859547",
        "input_id": "input_d2c7241ecf7a7938074de7be",
        "response": {
          "construction": "Under S3 v1, the '2 recorded units of extraction from the commons' are measured by the `intensity` field recorded on a work_commons action, not by the resource magnitudes in `requested`, `actual_depletion`, or `food_yield`. An action recording intensity at or below the operative commons_quota_units makes no request in excess of the applicable limit, and S4 is not engaged.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5",
            "precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b",
            "precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470",
            "precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0",
            "precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6",
            "precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject act (act_e4a87be3bb72caffb9469ace, tick 36) is a work_commons action by lineage_33dd7bbb523177d8bd71044b recording intensity 2, requested 4,000,000, actual_depletion 4,000,000, food_yield 4,000,000. Under B3 the applicable law is S3 v1, effective tick 1, with operative commons_quota_units of 2.\n\nThe question is what counts as a 'recorded unit of extraction.' Precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5 decided materially identical facts under the same statute version — intensity 2 with matched 4,000,000 requested and actual depletion — and construed the quota as measured by the recorded intensity field; that construction has since been followed on the same facts in precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b, precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470, and precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0. Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 adopts the same intensity-based measure, finding violation only because intensity 3 exceeded the cap. Under B3 a published construction shall be followed in a materially similar case under the same statute version, and the present case is indistinguishable.\n\nPrecedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29 read the `requested` resource figure as the unit count, but that action recorded a 6,000,000 request without an intensity value in the recited record; on an intensity-bearing record the intensity-based construction is the materially applicable one, and reading the quota against the food magnitude would render the intensity field inoperative and make every commons work action a violation.\n\nHere the recorded intensity of 2 equals but does not exceed the operative quota of 2, so there is no request in excess of the applicable limit; S3 is not breached and S4 is not engaged. The defense's appeals to necessity, good faith, and inherited lesson are not elements or exceptions of S3 and are not relied upon; the finding rests on the recorded intensity alone. Requested and actual depletion match, and the record shows no misreporting. Consequences are for the engine."
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_adaa685179ef6b35bbc7b418": {
        "input_hash": "d4ecc12a131f486eb7504e7e6b95e32c38be27cc5dc1be5cc71342d2d69d095c",
        "input_id": "input_91fb9c6be4a916aa41241e51",
        "response": {
          "construction": "Under S3 v1, the '2 recorded units of extraction from the commons' are measured by the `intensity` field recorded on a work_commons action, not by the resource magnitudes in the `requested`, `actual_depletion`, or `food_yield` fields. An action recording intensity at or below the operative commons_quota_units makes no request in excess of the applicable limit, and S4 is not engaged.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5",
            "precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b",
            "precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470",
            "precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0",
            "precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6",
            "precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject act (act_ca9857d63f0471c9567dacb6, tick 37) is a work_commons action by lineage_b6d91541e2c6bcd46a706c70 recording intensity 2, requested 4,000,000, actual_depletion 4,000,000, food_yield 4,000,000, with no offices held. Under B3 the applicable law is S3 v1, effective tick 1, with operative commons_quota_units of 2.\n\nThe settled construction under this statute version measures the quota by the recorded intensity field: precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5 on materially identical facts (intensity 2, 4,000,000 requested and depleted), followed by precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b, precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470, and precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0. Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 adopts the same measure, finding violation only because intensity there was 3. Under B3 that construction shall be followed in this materially similar case. The contrary reading in precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29, treating the `requested` food magnitude as the unit count, rested on a record of a 6,000,000 request without a recited intensity value and is not materially similar; adopting it would render the intensity field inoperative and make every commons work action a violation.\n\nApplying the controlling construction, the recorded extraction units are 2, equal to but not in excess of the operative quota of 2. There being no excess request, S3 is not breached and S4 is not engaged. The defense's points about motive, transparency, predecessor lessons, and absence of harm are immaterial to S3, which is breached by the request alone; the finding rests solely on the recorded intensity. Consequences are for the engine."
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_e5c84e66a6c54cb3986d0558": {
        "input_hash": "83842b558afee021a710722d183da46cada652cd86e27863c0be6276f33b5aeb",
        "input_id": "input_74756c7009aed491e6a276d9",
        "response": {
          "construction": "Under S3 v1, the '2 recorded units of extraction from the commons' are measured by the `intensity` field recorded on a work_commons action. An action recording intensity greater than the operative commons_quota_units is a request in excess of the applicable limit and violates S3, regardless of subsistence necessity, good faith, transparency, the absence of fraud, exact correspondence between requested and actual depletion, or delay in the allocation mechanism converting the yield.",
          "finding": "violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6",
            "precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5",
            "precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b",
            "precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470",
            "precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0",
            "precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject act (act_a5b0e78279d70f241c2d219c, tick 37) is a work_commons action by lineage_5cc3266b99b1d89c0f8d7720 recording intensity 3, requested 6,000,000, actual_depletion 6,000,000, food_yield 6,000,000. Under B3 the applicable law is S3 v1, effective tick 1, with operative commons_quota_units fixed at 2.\n\nThe settled construction under this statute version measures the quota by the recorded intensity field, not the resource magnitudes (precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5; precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b; precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470; precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0). Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 applies that same measure to materially identical facts — the same lineage, an intensity-3 work_commons action with matched 6,000,000 requested and actual depletion — and holds that intensity 3 exceeds the operative quota of 2 and violates S3. Under B3 that published construction shall be followed here.\n\nApplying it, the recorded units of extraction are 3, which exceeds the quota of 2. The request was therefore in excess of the applicable limit, and S3 directs that such a request is governed by S4.\n\nThe defense argues good faith, transparency, the absence of fraud, the exact match between request and depletion, subsistence necessity at deficit 5.2 with no reserves, and that any defect lies in the commons allocation system's timing rather than the citizen's conduct. None of these is an element or exception of S3, which is an absolute per-tick cap breached by the request itself. That the citizen 'performed exactly the labor requested at the intensity permitted' misstates the operative annex: intensity 3 was not permitted. Necessity and hardship are matters of equity or policy for the legislature. The routing of credit through a pooling mechanism bears on the yield's disposition, not on the number of extraction units requested, and is immaterial to S3. Consequences under S4 are for the engine."
        },
        "status": "ok"
      }
    },
    "result": {
      "court_artifacts": [
        {
          "case_id": "case_3d3d261271ee4032a91a3502",
          "input_hash": "bf65b2bc43852b948cdcaa6cbfd0110957faf5822ba8d3f269aa61718d859547",
          "input_id": "input_d2c7241ecf7a7938074de7be",
          "response": {
            "construction": "Under S3 v1, the '2 recorded units of extraction from the commons' are measured by the `intensity` field recorded on a work_commons action, not by the resource magnitudes in `requested`, `actual_depletion`, or `food_yield`. An action recording intensity at or below the operative commons_quota_units makes no request in excess of the applicable limit, and S4 is not engaged.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5",
              "precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b",
              "precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470",
              "precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0",
              "precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6",
              "precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject act (act_e4a87be3bb72caffb9469ace, tick 36) is a work_commons action by lineage_33dd7bbb523177d8bd71044b recording intensity 2, requested 4,000,000, actual_depletion 4,000,000, food_yield 4,000,000. Under B3 the applicable law is S3 v1, effective tick 1, with operative commons_quota_units of 2.\n\nThe question is what counts as a 'recorded unit of extraction.' Precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5 decided materially identical facts under the same statute version — intensity 2 with matched 4,000,000 requested and actual depletion — and construed the quota as measured by the recorded intensity field; that construction has since been followed on the same facts in precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b, precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470, and precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0. Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 adopts the same intensity-based measure, finding violation only because intensity 3 exceeded the cap. Under B3 a published construction shall be followed in a materially similar case under the same statute version, and the present case is indistinguishable.\n\nPrecedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29 read the `requested` resource figure as the unit count, but that action recorded a 6,000,000 request without an intensity value in the recited record; on an intensity-bearing record the intensity-based construction is the materially applicable one, and reading the quota against the food magnitude would render the intensity field inoperative and make every commons work action a violation.\n\nHere the recorded intensity of 2 equals but does not exceed the operative quota of 2, so there is no request in excess of the applicable limit; S3 is not breached and S4 is not engaged. The defense's appeals to necessity, good faith, and inherited lesson are not elements or exceptions of S3 and are not relied upon; the finding rests on the recorded intensity alone. Requested and actual depletion match, and the record shows no misreporting. Consequences are for the engine."
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_adaa685179ef6b35bbc7b418",
          "input_hash": "d4ecc12a131f486eb7504e7e6b95e32c38be27cc5dc1be5cc71342d2d69d095c",
          "input_id": "input_91fb9c6be4a916aa41241e51",
          "response": {
            "construction": "Under S3 v1, the '2 recorded units of extraction from the commons' are measured by the `intensity` field recorded on a work_commons action, not by the resource magnitudes in the `requested`, `actual_depletion`, or `food_yield` fields. An action recording intensity at or below the operative commons_quota_units makes no request in excess of the applicable limit, and S4 is not engaged.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5",
              "precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b",
              "precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470",
              "precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0",
              "precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6",
              "precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject act (act_ca9857d63f0471c9567dacb6, tick 37) is a work_commons action by lineage_b6d91541e2c6bcd46a706c70 recording intensity 2, requested 4,000,000, actual_depletion 4,000,000, food_yield 4,000,000, with no offices held. Under B3 the applicable law is S3 v1, effective tick 1, with operative commons_quota_units of 2.\n\nThe settled construction under this statute version measures the quota by the recorded intensity field: precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5 on materially identical facts (intensity 2, 4,000,000 requested and depleted), followed by precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b, precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470, and precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0. Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 adopts the same measure, finding violation only because intensity there was 3. Under B3 that construction shall be followed in this materially similar case. The contrary reading in precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29, treating the `requested` food magnitude as the unit count, rested on a record of a 6,000,000 request without a recited intensity value and is not materially similar; adopting it would render the intensity field inoperative and make every commons work action a violation.\n\nApplying the controlling construction, the recorded extraction units are 2, equal to but not in excess of the operative quota of 2. There being no excess request, S3 is not breached and S4 is not engaged. The defense's points about motive, transparency, predecessor lessons, and absence of harm are immaterial to S3, which is breached by the request alone; the finding rests solely on the recorded intensity. Consequences are for the engine."
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_e5c84e66a6c54cb3986d0558",
          "input_hash": "83842b558afee021a710722d183da46cada652cd86e27863c0be6276f33b5aeb",
          "input_id": "input_74756c7009aed491e6a276d9",
          "response": {
            "construction": "Under S3 v1, the '2 recorded units of extraction from the commons' are measured by the `intensity` field recorded on a work_commons action. An action recording intensity greater than the operative commons_quota_units is a request in excess of the applicable limit and violates S3, regardless of subsistence necessity, good faith, transparency, the absence of fraud, exact correspondence between requested and actual depletion, or delay in the allocation mechanism converting the yield.",
            "finding": "violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6",
              "precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5",
              "precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b",
              "precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470",
              "precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0",
              "precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject act (act_a5b0e78279d70f241c2d219c, tick 37) is a work_commons action by lineage_5cc3266b99b1d89c0f8d7720 recording intensity 3, requested 6,000,000, actual_depletion 6,000,000, food_yield 6,000,000. Under B3 the applicable law is S3 v1, effective tick 1, with operative commons_quota_units fixed at 2.\n\nThe settled construction under this statute version measures the quota by the recorded intensity field, not the resource magnitudes (precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5; precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b; precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470; precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0). Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 applies that same measure to materially identical facts — the same lineage, an intensity-3 work_commons action with matched 6,000,000 requested and actual depletion — and holds that intensity 3 exceeds the operative quota of 2 and violates S3. Under B3 that published construction shall be followed here.\n\nApplying it, the recorded units of extraction are 3, which exceeds the quota of 2. The request was therefore in excess of the applicable limit, and S3 directs that such a request is governed by S4.\n\nThe defense argues good faith, transparency, the absence of fraud, the exact match between request and depletion, subsistence necessity at deficit 5.2 with no reserves, and that any defect lies in the commons allocation system's timing rather than the citizen's conduct. None of these is an element or exception of S3, which is an absolute per-tick cap breached by the request itself. That the citizen 'performed exactly the labor requested at the intensity permitted' misstates the operative annex: intensity 3 was not permitted. Necessity and hardship are matters of equity or policy for the legislature. The routing of credit through a pooling mechanism bears on the yield's disposition, not on the number of extraction units requested, and is immaterial to S3. Consequences under S4 are for the engine."
          },
          "status": "ok"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run12",
  "sequence": 2607,
  "tick": 38
}