Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_c1d83af9bd…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_df020cd94722ac78e5945cc1Opened at tick 50 concerning Action act_11e7768bbd… attributed to Lineage 9.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_4530778fe6…
- Subject
- Action act_11e7768bbd… at tick 48
- Target
- Lineage 9
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject action itself is the very conduct the inherited lesson demanded: at tick 48, deficit stable at zero, the defendant performed intensity-2 commons work yielding 3,646,121 food against a 4,000,000 request—directly securing food rather than gambling metal-for-food, exactly as instructed. There is no discretion failure here: the actual_depletion and food_yield figures show a real, substantial harvest was produced from commons labor, not a speculative trade. Any shortfall between requested and yielded amounts reflects normal resource variance (drought conditions were explicitly noted across the journal window), not misconduct or negligence. The defendant cannot be faulted for a depletion/yield gap inherent to commons-work mechanics during an active drought. Holding to a disciplined, food-first strategy across dozens of consecutive ticks, culminating in this very action, is the opposite of the failure described in the inherited brief. This action should be judged as compliant, prudent execution of the required lesson, not as a violation warranting liability.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject act (act_11e7768bbd190b0c0dfa2409, tick 48) is a work_commons action by lineage_bbb5282ced40d640885807a4 recording intensity 2, requested 4,000,000, actual_depletion 4,000,000, food_yield 3,646,121, with no offices held. 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: precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5 decided materially identical facts (intensity 2 with a 4,000,000 request), followed in precedent_0103fce5fb164b96d50a4d0b, precedent_6bf2d787ae3f6afb51642470, precedent_ffff06226d5ee71c3f64b2f0, precedent_1ded1510f69828b21ee09003, precedent_8fc9d140bda2ac2470502ce9, precedent_a11d4e6389c6f7d97d48706c, precedent_06b68f0db9ca450f9e26ad85, precedent_96307324b2fb5cdd852ec52c, precedent_a1b65ce108f95d4041f5292a, precedent_5e19b68444dadd7a242c397e, and precedent_f4557190f9ba8449537756d7 — several concerning this same lineage. Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 and precedent_4f1f55167d62fe3f0bbad146 apply the same intensity-based measure, finding violation only where intensity was 3. Under B3 that published construction shall be followed here.
The contrary reading in precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29, treating the `requested` food magnitude as the unit count, rested on 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.
Applying the controlling construction, the recorded units of extraction are 2, equal to but not in excess of the operative quota of 2. The gap between actual_depletion of 4,000,000 and food_yield of 3,646,121 concerns the productivity of the labor, not the number of extraction units requested, and S3 limits only the request; the shortfall is therefore immaterial. There being no excess request, S3 is not breached and S4 is not engaged. The defense's appeals to necessity, drought, inherited lessons, and prudent strategy are not elements or exceptions of S3 and are not relied upon; the finding rests solely on the recorded intensity. Consequences are for the engine.
Matter is not case
matter_4530778fe6… deduplicated legal question
case_df020cd947… adjudication record
precedent_c1d83af9bd… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.