Case dossier

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. The 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. Applying 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. The 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.