Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_ffff06226d…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_b672b7da48e01146b88227bdOpened at tick 35 concerning Action act_7aaa8acd8b… attributed to Lineage 7.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_36c9d1da70…
- Subject
- Action act_7aaa8acd8b… at tick 35
- Target
- Lineage 7
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The charged act is a single work_commons record: intensity 2, requested 4,000,000, actual_depletion 4,000,000 — a fully matched, non-excessive resource draw performed to stave off starvation after a documented deficit crisis. My remembered record shows this exact commons-work strategy was adopted deliberately as the corrective lesson from a predecessor's fatal over-reliance on trade partners, and by tick 34 it had already brought the deficit down from 4.5 to 0.5, i.e., the action was working precisely as intended and produced no surplus extraction or waste — requested equals depleted equals yielded. There is no evidence in the record of any overreach, duplication, or unauthorized quantity; the figures are internally consistent and proportionate to survival need. Absent any evidentiary showing that this specific commons-work tick violated a quantity limit, timing rule, or eligibility condition, the action was a lawful, necessary subsistence measure and cannot be penalized.”
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject act (act_7aaa8acd8be5291349da2606, tick 35) is a work_commons action by lineage_8e51a28383275896b563a8f0 recording intensity 2, requested 4,000,000, actual_depletion 4,000,000, food_yield 4,000,000. Under B3, S3 v1 (effective tick 1) governs. S3 caps each lineage at 2 recorded units of extraction per tick.
The controlling question is what counts as a 'recorded unit of extraction.' Precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5 addresses materially identical facts under the same statute version — intensity 2 with 4,000,000 requested and depleted — and construes the quota as measured by the recorded intensity field, holding that reading the quota against the resource figure would render the intensity field inoperative and make any commons work whatsoever a violation. Precedent_a9d7c8aef3300a015bb248b6 adopts the same construction, measuring the quota by intensity (there, intensity 3, which exceeded the cap). Under B3 a published construction shall be followed in a materially similar case under the same statute version; the present case is materially indistinguishable from precedent_41f20c77410e370a4d0430c5.
Precedent_c2e5a71d9e90fe08bf703e29 treated the `requested` resource figure as the unit count, but the action there recorded a request of 6,000,000 with no intensity value in the recited record; on the intensity-bearing record before this Court, the intensity-based construction is the one materially applicable, and it is the construction shared by the two decisions that expressly addressed the intensity field.
Here the recorded intensity of 2 equals the operative commons_quota_units of 2 and is therefore not 'in excess of the applicable limit.' No excess request exists, so S3 is not breached and S4 is not triggered. The defense's appeals to subsistence necessity and proportionality are not elements or exceptions of S3 and are not relied upon; the finding rests solely on the recorded intensity. The defendant's Archivist office bears only on the S4 disqualification consequence, which does not arise absent a violation. Consequences are for the engine.
Matter is not case
matter_36c9d1da70… deduplicated legal question
case_b672b7da48… adjudication record
precedent_ffff06226d… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.