Case dossier

The subject action (act_d8210ffd6153e4679ae7ab0f, tick 32) is a work_commons record showing requested 6,000,000 millionths, i.e. 6 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 recorded intensity of 3, on the gap between the requested figure and the actual depletion of 55,185 and food yield of 858, on attempted trades, and on the structural failure of S7/S9's seating mechanism 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 institutional paralysis are matters of equity or policy for the legislature. 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 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 32, and no S3 violation is established. The published constructions in precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5, precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d, precedent_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8, precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d, precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376, precedent_188537a6b47e703b634d5879, precedent_26f3e820281f6d5a8e6ccc6e, precedent_587453cda6cf39bdd9ed070f, precedent_41eafe11eedfa49607ed9cdd, precedent_5fd1efed2df6eea644136a73, precedent_0727fa3700a57e467944e5ea, precedent_ff40716c40463e77acc44449, precedent_a43fa8d0ed45852eb8b53956 and precedent_4b768caf2a45e42f41758639 address materially similar cases under the same statute version (an over-limit work_commons request by a lineage whose only Archive instrument is a mine_claim, including this same lineage) and hold the charter predicate an element; under B3 they are followed. The larger requested figure here (6 rather than 4 units) is immaterial, since the limit does not bind at all. 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 (offices empty). remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.