CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 29 · OCCURRENCE 7

{
  "available_tick": 26,
  "case_id": "case_146a62e2696f8a7e1d56b556",
  "casebook_version": "0.2",
  "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction limit only on \"a household of record,\" which the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That charter predicate is an essential element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter (S6 lists charters and claims as distinct Archive records) and does not establish household-of-record status. Where no charter entered in the Archive is shown for the lineage, S3's limit does not bind it and no excess-request violation arises whatever quantity was requested; S4, which operates on \"an S3 violation,\" is likewise not engaged.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_669e0f715924380392231815",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_188537a6b47e703b634d5879",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
    "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
    "precedent_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8",
    "precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d",
    "precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376",
    "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject action (act_db165f75ea3e15286fadeec7, tick 19) is a work_commons record showing requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, measured against S3 v1's operative commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective from tick 1 and applicable under B3. The defence's reliance on exact reconciliation of requested, depletion, and yield would not answer the statute: S3 bounds the request itself, and depletion bears only on the S4 restoration measure. Its appeals to survival need and inherited briefs are matters of equity or policy for the legislature.\n\nThe case turns instead on the threshold element. S3 v1's verbatim text limits only \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole evidence supplied is the Archive lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e showing instrument type \"mine_claim\"; S6 treats charters and claims as distinct Archive records, and nothing in the canonical input shows a charter entered in the Archive for this lineage. I may not infer an unavailable charter record.\n\nFour published constructions under the same statute version on materially identical facts (a 4,000,000 work_commons request by a lineage whose only Archive instrument is a mine_claim) hold the charter predicate to be an essential element: precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5, precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d, precedent_53e09e3fca696206952f25c8, precedent_3f1618f16aa0b420767c242d, and precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376. Under B3 I follow them. The contrary suggestion in precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 that a non-chartered lineage is nonetheless bound by a ceiling of at most two units 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.\n\nHousehold-of-record status being unproven, the limit did not bind this lineage at tick 19 and no S3 violation is established. No office is recorded for the actor at the subject tick. remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.",
  "ruling_tick": 25,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}