CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 28 · OCCURRENCE 6

{
  "available_tick": 23,
  "case_id": "case_caf355d24c5ae25cb43e98ab",
  "casebook_version": "0.2",
  "construction": "S3 v1 imposes its per-tick extraction ceiling only on \"a household of record,\" a term the statute itself defines as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" That charter predicate is an element of the offence and must appear on the record. An Archive-entered instrument of a different type, such as a mine_claim, does not satisfy it, and the statute contains no text extending any limit to lineages outside the defined class. Where no charter entered in the Archive is shown for the lineage, S3's limit does not bind it and no S3 violation can be found whatever quantity was requested; S4, which operates on \"an S3 violation,\" is likewise not engaged.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_00f4fce2566c9131270bd333",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_ddf226262182da24404ac376",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
    "precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d",
    "precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject action (act_8d75eaeb34970bc023e0e435, tick 17) is a work_commons record with requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, measured against S3 v1's operative commons_quota_units = 2, the version effective at the recorded tick (B3). The defence's contention that identity between requested and actual_depletion cures the figure would fail, since S3 bounds the request and depletion figures bear only on the S4 restoration measure. But the threshold element is unproven. 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 is an Archive lineage-instrument record for lineage_6ea971db12927a888a97866e showing instrument type \"mine_claim\"; S6 lists 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. Two published constructions on this same statute version (precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5 and precedent_5ea57ec9b97d848b9daa0a9d) hold the charter predicate an essential element in materially identical facts (an Archive mine_claim and a 4,000,000 request), and I follow them under B3. The contrary suggestion in precedent_d439460a0df60e2b0facc424 that a non-chartered lineage is nonetheless bound by a ceiling of at most two units has no anchor in the statute's text, which imposes no limit on lineages outside the defined class; applying the text as written, whether the limit ought to reach non-chartered households is for the legislature. No office is recorded for the actor at the subject tick, and remedy_offers is empty, so no discretionary remedy is selected.",
  "ruling_tick": 22,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}