Case dossier

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. The 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. Precedent_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. Here 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.