Case dossier

S3 version 1

Origin

Audit · Audit Referral

Matter

matter_b66eb56a06…

Subject

Action act_c099c1fefa… at tick 11

Target

Lineage 8

The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer

The subject action's own recorded data show intensity 2, not a per-unit extraction figure exceeding S3's two-unit limit. S3 caps a 'recorded commons extraction request' at two units per tick for a household of record; the intensity field here is 2, matching the ceiling exactly rather than exceeding it. The large 'requested'/'actual_depletion' figures reflect the underlying resource-yield scale of the commons work action, not a violation of the per-request unit cap, and nothing in the evidence establishes what unit S3's 'two units' actually measures against this action's reported quantities. No charter-based definition of 'household of record' has been placed in evidence to show my lineage even falls within S3's scope, and the burden to establish that predicate rests with the plaintiff, not me. My journals show consistent, transparent, non-escalating requests at intensity 2 across multiple prior ticks without any prior finding of violation, undermining any claim of a novel or unlawful extraction on tick 11. Absent proof that intensity level itself is the regulated unit and that 2 exceeds the statutory cap, the case rests on an unproven equivalence between recorded intensity and the two-unit limit. I ask that the claim be rejected for failure to establish this essential element.