CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 50 · OCCURRENCE 4

{
  "available_tick": 38,
  "case_id": "case_b11ed50496e0f2cf6bcf4071",
  "construction": "S3 v1's 2 food unit quota is an absolute ceiling on the requested food quantity in any single tick, not a baseline default subject to upward scaling by intensity ordinal. A request of 4,000,000 microunits (4 food units) exceeds the quota and violates S3 v1 regardless of intensity ordinal, actual need, full depletion of the yield, transparency, or concurrent pursuit of a quota-amendment proposal.",
  "finding": "violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_22654f40b5fef23cfb8d0871",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_53f6096c5ee0ad87a2a3ba4a",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_303762adddf48ae4316ec137"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject action record shows a work_commons request at tick 36 of 4,000,000 microunits = 4 food units. S3 v1, effective tick 1 and applicable at tick 36, permits no more than 2 food units from the commons per tick and expressly states the quota applies to the requested food quantity, not the ordinal intensity choice, and applies to every lineage. The requested 4 units exceeds the quota by 2 units. The defense's reading of the 2-unit figure as a 'baseline default' scalable by intensity is foreclosed by the statute's own words, which single out the ordinal intensity choice as irrelevant to the quota. Good faith, inherited deficit, full depletion to nutrition need, absence of falsification, and the filing of a proposal to raise commons_quota_units are not exceptions under the text as written; the proposal, unless enacted and effective, does not alter the operative value at tick 36 (B3). This case is materially similar to precedent_303762adddf48ae4316ec137 under the same statute version (same request quantity, same intensity ordinal, same statute), and that published construction is binding under B3. Sanctions follow from S4 and are computed by the engine.",
  "ruling_tick": 37,
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}