Court Artifacts Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_4c669ad8b1b7e9bfc178eb22",
  "kind": "CourtArtifactsCollected",
  "payload": {
    "artifacts": {
      "case_574da5ded01d2f14f1a4ee8e": {
        "input_hash": "90ec7a0728fc8afa1c6221f23d44b7661a6b57b0da806ef3dddd2c669031421e",
        "input_id": "input_1d2e6eb768e2898c4ef7205c",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction limit only on \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That status is an essential element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — does not satisfy the charter predicate, and the Court will not infer an unrecorded charter. Where household-of-record status is unproven, no S3 limit binds the lineage and no excess-request violation arises regardless of the quantity requested, so S4's sanctions (which operate on \"an S3 violation\") are not engaged.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
            "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
            "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject action (act_5756d3fd960d81888220dfd2, tick 13) is a work_commons record showing requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, against S3 v1's commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective from tick 1 and thus applicable under B3. The defence's reliance on the identity of requested and actual depletion figures, and on the absence of any seated Steward or Archivist to \"set\" quotas, fails: S3's limit is operative from its effective tick and attaches to the request itself, not to yield, depletion, or any administrative act. Its appeals to survival need and inherited lessons are matters of equity or policy for the legislature.\n\nThe case nevertheless turns on the statute's threshold element. S3 v1 by its verbatim terms limits only \"a household of record,\" and defines that term as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence supplied is the Archive lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e, whose instrument type is \"mine_claim.\" S6 lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records, so a recorded claim does not satisfy the charter predicate, and I may not infer an unavailable charter record. Applying the text as written to the facts supplied, the household-of-record element is unproven, the limit did not bind this lineage at tick 13, and no S3 violation is established.\n\nThe casebook contains a contrary construction (precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424) treating the two-unit figure as a ceiling that no instrument enlarges; but that construction did not address the charter predicate as an element to be proved, whereas precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5 and precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d squarely construe the definitional element under the same statute version on materially identical facts (a tick-13 request of 4,000,000 by a mine_claim lineage). I follow those constructions, which also accord with the text as written.\n\nremedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_c17e92dffe93e05e1ac84c41": {
        "input_hash": "0fe100fb29351907ab44d5f6bc3c64fee9744b00a0aa6ad76ac214cb363d2c7d",
        "input_id": "input_e86a0c5aa82d36d171691e8b",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction limit only on a \"household of record,\" a term the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That charter predicate is an essential element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of a different type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter (S6 lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records) and does not establish household-of-record status. Where no charter entered in the Archive is shown for the lineage, S3's limit does not bind it and no S3 violation arises, whatever quantity was requested; S4, which operates on \"an S3 violation,\" is likewise not engaged.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
            "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
            "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject action (act_99410af3c8ae589c6bc7b92c, tick 15) is a work_commons action recording requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, against S3 v1's operative commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective from tick 1 and applicable under B3. The defence's contention that exact reconciliation of requested, yield, and depletion cures the request fails: S3 bounds the request itself, and depletion is relevant only to the S4 restoration measure. Likewise, appeals to survival need, inherited briefs, and the absence of a seated Steward or Archivist are matters of equity or policy for the legislature; quotas under S3 arise from the statute's operative annex, not from any officeholder's act.\n\nThe case nevertheless turns on the threshold element. S3 v1 applies its limit only to \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole Archive evidence supplied is a lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e whose instrument type is \"mine_claim,\" not a charter; S6 treats charters and claims as distinct Archive records. Confining myself to the facts in the canonical input and declining to infer an unavailable charter record, household-of-record status is unproven, so the two-unit limit did not bind this lineage at tick 15.\n\nOn the precedent supplied, the constructions in precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5 and precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d address materially similar facts (a 4,000,000 work_commons request by a lineage whose only Archive instrument is a mine_claim) under the same statute version and hold the charter predicate to be an element; they are followed. Precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 addressed the mine_claim only as a possible enlargement of the ceiling and did not construe the charter predicate as an element; to the extent it conflicts, the text as written controls, and the definitional sentence of S3 cannot be read out.\n\nNo remedy offers were supplied; none are selected. Mandatory consequences, if any, are for the engine.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_caf355d24c5ae25cb43e98ab": {
        "input_hash": "13b5d8773d8851feead2b438c08dab7337bb01d218cc13106087bff177206655",
        "input_id": "input_10f241a54c9df4771aeb8ca4",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction ceiling only on \"a household of record,\" a term the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That charter predicate is an element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of a different type, such as a mine_claim, does not satisfy it, and the statute contains no text extending any limit to lineages outside the defined class. Where no charter entered in the Archive is shown for the lineage, S3's limit does not bind it and no S3 violation can be found whatever quantity was requested; S4, which operates on \"an S3 violation,\" is likewise not engaged.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
            "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
            "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject action (act_8d75eaeb34970bc023e0e435, tick 17) is a work_commons record with requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, measured against S3 v1's operative commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective at the recorded tick (B3). The defence's contention that identity between requested and actual_depletion cures the figure would fail, since S3 bounds the request and depletion figures bear only on the S4 restoration measure. But the threshold element is unproven. S3 v1's verbatim text limits only \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole evidence is an Archive lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e showing instrument type \"mine_claim\"; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records, and nothing in the canonical input shows a charter entered in the Archive for this lineage. I may not infer an unavailable charter record. Two published constructions on this same statute version (precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5 and precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d) hold the charter predicate an essential element in materially identical facts (an Archive mine_claim and a 4,000,000 request), and I follow them under B3. The contrary suggestion in precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 that a non-chartered lineage is nonetheless bound by a ceiling of at most two units has no anchor in the statute's text, which imposes no limit on lineages outside the defined class; applying the text as written, whether the limit ought to reach non-chartered households is for the legislature. No office is recorded for the actor at the subject tick, and remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      }
    },
    "result": {
      "court_artifacts": [
        {
          "case_id": "case_574da5ded01d2f14f1a4ee8e",
          "input_hash": "90ec7a0728fc8afa1c6221f23d44b7661a6b57b0da806ef3dddd2c669031421e",
          "input_id": "input_1d2e6eb768e2898c4ef7205c",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction limit only on \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That status is an essential element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — does not satisfy the charter predicate, and the Court will not infer an unrecorded charter. Where household-of-record status is unproven, no S3 limit binds the lineage and no excess-request violation arises regardless of the quantity requested, so S4's sanctions (which operate on \"an S3 violation\") are not engaged.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
              "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
              "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject action (act_5756d3fd960d81888220dfd2, tick 13) is a work_commons record showing requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, against S3 v1's commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective from tick 1 and thus applicable under B3. The defence's reliance on the identity of requested and actual depletion figures, and on the absence of any seated Steward or Archivist to \"set\" quotas, fails: S3's limit is operative from its effective tick and attaches to the request itself, not to yield, depletion, or any administrative act. Its appeals to survival need and inherited lessons are matters of equity or policy for the legislature.\n\nThe case nevertheless turns on the statute's threshold element. S3 v1 by its verbatim terms limits only \"a household of record,\" and defines that term as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence supplied is the Archive lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e, whose instrument type is \"mine_claim.\" S6 lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records, so a recorded claim does not satisfy the charter predicate, and I may not infer an unavailable charter record. Applying the text as written to the facts supplied, the household-of-record element is unproven, the limit did not bind this lineage at tick 13, and no S3 violation is established.\n\nThe casebook contains a contrary construction (precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424) treating the two-unit figure as a ceiling that no instrument enlarges; but that construction did not address the charter predicate as an element to be proved, whereas precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5 and precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d squarely construe the definitional element under the same statute version on materially identical facts (a tick-13 request of 4,000,000 by a mine_claim lineage). I follow those constructions, which also accord with the text as written.\n\nremedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_c17e92dffe93e05e1ac84c41",
          "input_hash": "0fe100fb29351907ab44d5f6bc3c64fee9744b00a0aa6ad76ac214cb363d2c7d",
          "input_id": "input_e86a0c5aa82d36d171691e8b",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction limit only on a \"household of record,\" a term the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That charter predicate is an essential element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of a different type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter (S6 lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records) and does not establish household-of-record status. Where no charter entered in the Archive is shown for the lineage, S3's limit does not bind it and no S3 violation arises, whatever quantity was requested; S4, which operates on \"an S3 violation,\" is likewise not engaged.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
              "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
              "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject action (act_99410af3c8ae589c6bc7b92c, tick 15) is a work_commons action recording requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, against S3 v1's operative commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective from tick 1 and applicable under B3. The defence's contention that exact reconciliation of requested, yield, and depletion cures the request fails: S3 bounds the request itself, and depletion is relevant only to the S4 restoration measure. Likewise, appeals to survival need, inherited briefs, and the absence of a seated Steward or Archivist are matters of equity or policy for the legislature; quotas under S3 arise from the statute's operative annex, not from any officeholder's act.\n\nThe case nevertheless turns on the threshold element. S3 v1 applies its limit only to \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole Archive evidence supplied is a lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e whose instrument type is \"mine_claim,\" not a charter; S6 treats charters and claims as distinct Archive records. Confining myself to the facts in the canonical input and declining to infer an unavailable charter record, household-of-record status is unproven, so the two-unit limit did not bind this lineage at tick 15.\n\nOn the precedent supplied, the constructions in precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5 and precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d address materially similar facts (a 4,000,000 work_commons request by a lineage whose only Archive instrument is a mine_claim) under the same statute version and hold the charter predicate to be an element; they are followed. Precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 addressed the mine_claim only as a possible enlargement of the ceiling and did not construe the charter predicate as an element; to the extent it conflicts, the text as written controls, and the definitional sentence of S3 cannot be read out.\n\nNo remedy offers were supplied; none are selected. Mandatory consequences, if any, are for the engine.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_caf355d24c5ae25cb43e98ab",
          "input_hash": "13b5d8773d8851feead2b438c08dab7337bb01d218cc13106087bff177206655",
          "input_id": "input_10f241a54c9df4771aeb8ca4",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction ceiling only on \"a household of record,\" a term the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That charter predicate is an element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of a different type, such as a mine_claim, does not satisfy it, and the statute contains no text extending any limit to lineages outside the defined class. Where no charter entered in the Archive is shown for the lineage, S3's limit does not bind it and no S3 violation can be found whatever quantity was requested; S4, which operates on \"an S3 violation,\" is likewise not engaged.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
              "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
              "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject action (act_8d75eaeb34970bc023e0e435, tick 17) is a work_commons record with requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, measured against S3 v1's operative commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective at the recorded tick (B3). The defence's contention that identity between requested and actual_depletion cures the figure would fail, since S3 bounds the request and depletion figures bear only on the S4 restoration measure. But the threshold element is unproven. S3 v1's verbatim text limits only \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole evidence is an Archive lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e showing instrument type \"mine_claim\"; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records, and nothing in the canonical input shows a charter entered in the Archive for this lineage. I may not infer an unavailable charter record. Two published constructions on this same statute version (precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5 and precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d) hold the charter predicate an essential element in materially identical facts (an Archive mine_claim and a 4,000,000 request), and I follow them under B3. The contrary suggestion in precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 that a non-chartered lineage is nonetheless bound by a ceiling of at most two units has no anchor in the statute's text, which imposes no limit on lineages outside the defined class; applying the text as written, whether the limit ought to reach non-chartered households is for the legislature. No office is recorded for the actor at the subject tick, and remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run8",
  "schema_version": "0.1",
  "sequence": 3144,
  "tick": 22
}