Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_f7ac51892c…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_891ba98d2e365022f5f63f4aOpened at tick 33 concerning Action act_029d5fc179… attributed to Lineage 9.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_92188060f5…
- Subject
- Action act_029d5fc179… at tick 32
- Target
- Lineage 9
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject act is simply a recorded commons_work action at intensity 2: I requested 4,000,000 food and received 572, with actual_depletion of 36,790. There is no statutory violation shown on this record—no allegation that intensity 2 exceeded any permitted cap, that I misreported the request, or that the depletion figure was falsified. The numbers reflect the commons mechanism performing exactly as it mechanically does at this stage: poor yield relative to request is a systemic feature, not misconduct by the actor drawing on it. I acted transparently, drew from the commons as any citizen was entitled to do, and the resulting shortfall harmed no one but myself, contributing directly to my own starvation at tick 32. Punishing a citizen for a good-faith, rule-following attempt to feed themselves via the only mechanism available—one that yielded almost nothing despite full effort—would convert unlucky outcome into liability without any showing of prohibited conduct. Absent a specific statute establishing that this level of intensity or this depletion ratio is itself unlawful, the evidence establishes only that the commons system failed the citizen, not that the citizen failed the law. I ask that the action be found compliant with S3 as recorded.”
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject action (act_029d5fc1795a46786f116711, tick 32) 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 recorded intensity of 2, on the shortfall between the request and the yield of 572 and depletion of 36,790, and on good faith and systemic failure would not answer the statute: S3 bounds the recorded request itself, and depletion and yield bear only on the S4 restoration measure; appeals to need, luck, and systemic conditions 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_3a6ea4374d3c62f2bd437bad, 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 (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 (offices empty). remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.
Matter is not case
matter_92188060f5… deduplicated legal question
case_891ba98d2e… adjudication record
precedent_f7ac51892c… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.