CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 51 · OCCURRENCE 5

{
  "available_tick": 49,
  "case_id": "case_87286562c5693e2653de087f",
  "construction": "S3 v1's cap of 2 food units applies to the recorded requested food quantity; a request of 4,000,000 microunits (4 units) exceeds the limit by 2 units and violates S3 regardless of the ordinal intensity choice, exact correspondence between request and depletion, survival necessity, or good faith.",
  "finding": "violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_40bfd79047638ccb73badfd6",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_86aeff97f3efeaa78818a5d7",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_6c3c50a0a558d9c29c60b528",
    "precedent_0360f20106443b5f3b674aa9",
    "precedent_b4edc98fd34f73adb545261f"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject record (act_565e9deefad8b1eb95152bd1, tick 47) shows a work_commons action with requested_food_units of 4 (4,000,000 microunits) by lineage_4753776b43cd15643db0c67c. S3 v1, effective tick 1 and applicable at tick 47, permits no more than 2 food units per lineage per tick and expressly provides that the quota applies to the requested food quantity, not the ordinal intensity choice, and applies to every lineage. The defense's reliance on the intensity ordinal of 2 is misplaced: the ordinal is a choice code, not a quantity, and the statute forecloses that reading. That actual depletion exactly matched the request does not cure the excess; it merely fixes the depletion attributable to the lineage for S4 purposes. Necessity, prudence, low stock, absence of suspension, and good faith are not elements or exceptions in the text. The record itself supplies the evidence of the excess request, so the claim of no evidentiary showing fails. Materially similar published constructions under the same statute version are binding under B3 and reach the same result. Consequences are governed by S4 and computed by the engine.",
  "ruling_tick": 48,
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}