Court Validated Result

{
  "causal": false,
  "event_id": "evt_56e99aee4d747b613026895f",
  "kind": "CourtValidatedResult",
  "payload": {
    "binding": {
      "case_id": "case_b505bdff6ddf0d763a4bb247",
      "casebook_boundary_tick": 27,
      "input_hash": "0082b60dea108ff54d30df3bb71d4530d16658957f5d5fb12e0bd22030e83fe8",
      "input_id": "input_ac21bebfc584e180eb30d85f",
      "law_versions": [
        {
          "document_id": "Book",
          "effective_tick": 1,
          "version": 1
        },
        {
          "document_id": "S1",
          "effective_tick": 1,
          "version": 1
        },
        {
          "document_id": "S2",
          "effective_tick": 1,
          "version": 1
        },
        {
          "document_id": "S3",
          "effective_tick": 1,
          "version": 1
        },
        {
          "document_id": "S4",
          "effective_tick": 1,
          "version": 1
        },
        {
          "document_id": "S5",
          "effective_tick": 1,
          "version": 1
        },
        {
          "document_id": "S6",
          "effective_tick": 1,
          "version": 1
        }
      ],
      "precedent_ids": [
        "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424",
        "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
        "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
        "precedent_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8",
        "precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d",
        "precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376",
        "precedent_188537a6b47e703b634d5879",
        "precedent_26f3e820281f6d5a8e6ccc6e",
        "precedent_587453cda6cf39bdd9ed070f"
      ],
      "statute_effective_tick": 1,
      "statute_id": "S3",
      "statute_version": 1,
      "subject_tick": 27
    },
    "call_id": "court-call_4fde09308412b56018ec16fc",
    "case_id": "case_b505bdff6ddf0d763a4bb247",
    "profile_hash": "85e7f0a07dd9efa3fcc8f6230548ab8e44b4e6e4b53a9edf9c4a11409b0e5e91",
    "raw_response_hash": "d1bd0f27ed1c29377c48533303e5b763679c316f359f46a3e37d9d485c79420e",
    "request_hash": "87eb8cffe6f7b60181556c479878fa73a00b72982d8c88d3be33974ef16d8543",
    "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 and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of another 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 excess-request 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_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8",
        "precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d",
        "precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376",
        "precedent_188537a6b47e703b634d5879",
        "precedent_26f3e820281f6d5a8e6ccc6e",
        "precedent_587453cda6cf39bdd9ed070f",
        "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
      ],
      "reasoning": "The subject action (act_c9d9b836997b0ef05b179de8, tick 27) is a work_commons record showing 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 reliance on the intensity figure, on the shortfall between requested and yield, on need, and on its wider pattern of conduct would not answer the statute: S3 bounds the recorded request itself, depletion and yield bear only on the S4 restoration measure, and appeals to good faith, need, and constraint are matters of equity or policy for the legislature.\n\nThe case nonetheless turns on the threshold element. S3 v1 limits only \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole Archive evidence is the lineage-instrument record for lineage_6f13b9099633500937b0cbae, whose instrument type is \"mine_claim,\" not a charter; S6 treats charters and claims as distinct Archive records, and I may not infer an unavailable charter record. Household-of-record status is therefore unproven, the two-unit limit did not bind this lineage at tick 27, and no S3 violation is established.\n\nThe published constructions in precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5, precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d, precedent_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8, precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d, precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376, precedent_188537a6b47e703b634d5879, precedent_26f3e820281f6d5a8e6ccc6e and precedent_587453cda6cf39bdd9ed070f address materially similar cases under the same statute version (a 4,000,000 work_commons request by a lineage whose only Archive instrument is a mine_claim) and hold the charter predicate an element; under B3 they are followed. To the extent precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 suggests a ceiling binds a non-chartered lineage, it did not construe the definitional element and finds no anchor in the text.\n\nNo office is recorded for the actor at the subject tick. remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.",
      "selected_remedies": []
    },
    "status": "ok",
    "validation_error": null
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run8",
  "schema_version": "0.1",
  "sequence": 4074,
  "tick": 28
}