Case dossier

The subject action (act_9d37efd9224e5dbb8d6255f5, tick 21) 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 identity of requested and actual_depletion figures fails on its own terms: S3 bounds the request itself, and depletion is relevant only to the S4 restoration measure; its appeals to survival need and to the corrective character of the act are matters of equity or policy for the legislature. Nor does the recorded "intensity 2" displace the recorded request quantity. The case nevertheless 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 supplied is a lineage-instrument record for lineage_dd5f1cb2ca92af69e141e257 whose instrument type is "mine_claim," not a charter, and I may not infer an unavailable charter record. Household-of-record status is therefore unproven and the two-unit limit did not bind this lineage at tick 21. The published constructions in precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5, precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d, precedent_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8, precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d and precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376 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; under B3 they are followed. To the extent precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 suggests a non-chartered lineage is bound by a ceiling of at most two units, it did not construe the charter predicate as an element and has no anchor in the text, which imposes no limit on lineages outside the defined class. No office is recorded for the actor at the subject tick. remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.