Case dossier

The subject action (act_c42bb3fcadee6fc03fdf1456, tick 24) 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 identity of requested and depletion figures, and on the absence of a seated Steward or Archivist fails: S3 bounds the recorded request itself, the quota arises from the statute's operative annex rather than any officeholder's act, and depletion bears only on the S4 restoration measure. Appeals to survival need and inherited lessons are matters of equity or policy for the legislature. The 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_6ea971db12927a888a97866e, 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 24, and no S3 violation is established. The published constructions in precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5, precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d, precedent_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8, precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d, and precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376 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. No office is recorded for the actor at the subject tick. remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.