Case dossier

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. The 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. The 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. remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.