CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 26 · OCCURRENCE 2

{
  "available_tick": 15,
  "case_id": "case_eb5a30acfc8701cc2bee994f",
  "casebook_version": "0.2",
  "construction": "S3's extraction limit attaches only to a 'household of record,' which the statute defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. That status is an element of the offence and must be established on the record by evidence of a charter so entered. An Archive-entered instrument of another type (here, a mine_claim) does not satisfy the definition, and no S3 limit binds a lineage not shown to be a household of record.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_ca2c073f0a3c42bbdd132161",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_c6b253687471a4bfc09c84a5",
  "precedent_refs": [],
  "reasoning": "The subject action at tick 13 records a work_commons request of 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 whole units, against S3 v1's limit of 2 recorded units; the raw millionth-scale figures reconcile straightforwardly to whole units, so the defence's unit-scale objection fails. However, S3 v1 by its verbatim terms imposes the limit only on 'a household of record,' and expressly defines that term as 'a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.' The only evidence supplied is an Archive lineage-instrument record showing instrument type 'mine_claim' for lineage_dd5f1cb2ca92af69e141e257; nothing in the record shows a charter entered in the Archive for that lineage. Applying the text as written and confining myself to the facts in the canonical input, the threshold element of household-of-record status is unproven, so the S3 limit did not bind this lineage at the subject tick and the excess-request rule (and S4's sanctions, which operate on 'an S3 violation') is not engaged. Whether the limit ought to reach non-chartered households is a question for the legislature, not the Court.",
  "ruling_tick": 14,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}