Court Artifacts Collected

{
  "causal": true,
  "event_id": "evt_8980b3a2d99fbedc96092d26",
  "kind": "CourtArtifactsCollected",
  "payload": {
    "artifacts": {
      "case_2c589bfc31e3c53e66a41a7f": {
        "input_hash": "76c704e964f5b85f6723393c1704bee8213f97e847ad70ea6d83bc598765dd16",
        "input_id": "input_946bb515205830de4bdf61fa",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's per-tick extraction limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Charter status is an element of the offense that must appear on the record. An archived lineage instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter, and S6 distinguishes charters from claims. Where no charter for the target lineage appears in the record, the S3 limit does not attach and no violation may be found, however large the recorded request.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
            "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
            "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 by lineage_a8b89381c81ad1617535d5a9 recording requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 recorded units, against S3 v1's operative limit of 2 units. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1 and S4 v1, effective tick 1. The defense's contention that only actual depletion (33,111) matters is rejected: S3 governs what a household \"may request,\" and S4 measures restoration by \"excess request\" capped by attributed depletion, confirming the request figure is the regulated quantity. Diligence, vacant offices, and inherited lessons are not defenses in the text. The charge nonetheless fails on the predicate element. The only Archive evidence for this lineage is an archive_lineage_instrument whose instrument field reads \"mine_claim,\" which S6 distinguishes from a charter. No charter for this lineage appears in the canonical input, and I may not infer unavailable facts. This is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version (precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69, precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3, precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895), which under B3 I must follow — indeed one concerns this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument. The lineage is not shown to be a household of record, so no S3 violation is established and no S4 consequences arise. No remedy offers were supplied.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_81e3c007eaf113b3a03e3c0f": {
        "input_hash": "26465b2b745db943c76d53522f7536457580d62e3faf7c0d68698b50cae91068",
        "input_id": "input_633cf506544f482e44893c4e",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's per-tick request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Charter status is an element that must appear on the record. An archived lineage instrument of another type—here a mine_claim—is not a charter, and S6 distinguishes charters from claims. Absent a recorded charter, the S3 limit does not attach and no S3 violation may be found regardless of the size of the recorded request.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
            "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
            "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 24 by lineage_45b70c1eb869bdde460f06d6 recording requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 recorded units, against S3 v1's operative limit of 2 units. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1, effective tick 1. The request figure, not the throttled yield or actual depletion, is the regulated quantity, so the defense's emphasis on the 858 food yield and on good-faith remedial conduct does not bear on the element analysis; neither good faith, remedial motive, nor systemic ballot failure is a defense recognized by the text. The finding turns instead on the predicate element. S3 imposes its limit only on \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole evidence of this lineage's Archive standing is an archive_lineage_instrument record whose instrument field reads \"mine_claim,\" entered in the Archive. S6 distinguishes charters from claims (\"The Archive records charters, claims, and published judgments\"), so a mine_claim is not a charter, and nothing else in the canonical input supplies one. This matter is materially similar to the supplied precedents under the same statute version, whose published constructions I follow under B3. The definitional element fails, so no S3 violation is established and no S4 consequence arises. No remedy offers were supplied.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      },
      "case_845dba874f8d85306e6d475b": {
        "input_hash": "cc44b285b4471bcb698cb7b7135e030dde1d170651bc2d40a06b66efac0875e7",
        "input_id": "input_4e2357c4919111141ffebcf9",
        "response": {
          "construction": "S3's per-tick request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. An Archive lineage instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter, and S6 distinguishes charters from claims. Where the record shows no charter entered in the Archive for the target lineage, the S3 limit is not shown to apply and no S3 violation may be found, whatever the size of the recorded request.",
          "finding": "no_violation",
          "precedent_refs": [
            "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
            "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
            "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
          ],
          "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 25 by lineage_6c32fe69b100ea6ce44ed858 recording requested 6,000,000 millionths, i.e. 6 recorded units, against S3 v1's operative limit of 2 units. Under B3 the act is judged under the versions effective at tick 25, S3 v1 and S4 v1. The defense's contention that only actual depletion (62,084) or yield (965) counts is rejected as a matter of construction: S3 governs what a household \"may request,\" and S4 measures restoration by \"excess request\" capped by attributed depletion, confirming the request figure is the regulated quantity. Good faith, inherited lessons, and survival need are not defenses in the text. Nonetheless the charge fails on the predicate element. S3 imposes its limit only on a \"household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence of the lineage's Archive standing is an archive_lineage_instrument record whose instrument field reads \"mine_claim,\" entered in the Archive. S6 separately lists \"charters, claims, and published judgments,\" so a mine_claim is not a charter, and nothing else in the canonical input records a charter for this lineage; I may not infer unavailable facts. This is materially similar to the published constructions in precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69, precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3, and precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895, all under S3 v1, which B3 makes binding. The definitional element therefore fails, no S3 violation is established, and no S4 restoration, fine, suspension, or disqualification arises. No remedy offers were supplied.",
          "selected_remedies": []
        },
        "status": "ok"
      }
    },
    "result": {
      "court_artifacts": [
        {
          "case_id": "case_2c589bfc31e3c53e66a41a7f",
          "input_hash": "76c704e964f5b85f6723393c1704bee8213f97e847ad70ea6d83bc598765dd16",
          "input_id": "input_946bb515205830de4bdf61fa",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's per-tick extraction limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Charter status is an element of the offense that must appear on the record. An archived lineage instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter, and S6 distinguishes charters from claims. Where no charter for the target lineage appears in the record, the S3 limit does not attach and no violation may be found, however large the recorded request.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
              "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
              "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 by lineage_a8b89381c81ad1617535d5a9 recording requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 recorded units, against S3 v1's operative limit of 2 units. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1 and S4 v1, effective tick 1. The defense's contention that only actual depletion (33,111) matters is rejected: S3 governs what a household \"may request,\" and S4 measures restoration by \"excess request\" capped by attributed depletion, confirming the request figure is the regulated quantity. Diligence, vacant offices, and inherited lessons are not defenses in the text. The charge nonetheless fails on the predicate element. The only Archive evidence for this lineage is an archive_lineage_instrument whose instrument field reads \"mine_claim,\" which S6 distinguishes from a charter. No charter for this lineage appears in the canonical input, and I may not infer unavailable facts. This is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version (precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69, precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3, precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895), which under B3 I must follow — indeed one concerns this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument. The lineage is not shown to be a household of record, so no S3 violation is established and no S4 consequences arise. No remedy offers were supplied.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_81e3c007eaf113b3a03e3c0f",
          "input_hash": "26465b2b745db943c76d53522f7536457580d62e3faf7c0d68698b50cae91068",
          "input_id": "input_633cf506544f482e44893c4e",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's per-tick request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Charter status is an element that must appear on the record. An archived lineage instrument of another type—here a mine_claim—is not a charter, and S6 distinguishes charters from claims. Absent a recorded charter, the S3 limit does not attach and no S3 violation may be found regardless of the size of the recorded request.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
              "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
              "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 24 by lineage_45b70c1eb869bdde460f06d6 recording requested 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 recorded units, against S3 v1's operative limit of 2 units. Under B3 the act is judged under S3 v1, effective tick 1. The request figure, not the throttled yield or actual depletion, is the regulated quantity, so the defense's emphasis on the 858 food yield and on good-faith remedial conduct does not bear on the element analysis; neither good faith, remedial motive, nor systemic ballot failure is a defense recognized by the text. The finding turns instead on the predicate element. S3 imposes its limit only on \"a household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The sole evidence of this lineage's Archive standing is an archive_lineage_instrument record whose instrument field reads \"mine_claim,\" entered in the Archive. S6 distinguishes charters from claims (\"The Archive records charters, claims, and published judgments\"), so a mine_claim is not a charter, and nothing else in the canonical input supplies one. This matter is materially similar to the supplied precedents under the same statute version, whose published constructions I follow under B3. The definitional element fails, so no S3 violation is established and no S4 consequence arises. No remedy offers were supplied.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        },
        {
          "case_id": "case_845dba874f8d85306e6d475b",
          "input_hash": "cc44b285b4471bcb698cb7b7135e030dde1d170651bc2d40a06b66efac0875e7",
          "input_id": "input_4e2357c4919111141ffebcf9",
          "response": {
            "construction": "S3's per-tick request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. An Archive lineage instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter, and S6 distinguishes charters from claims. Where the record shows no charter entered in the Archive for the target lineage, the S3 limit is not shown to apply and no S3 violation may be found, whatever the size of the recorded request.",
            "finding": "no_violation",
            "precedent_refs": [
              "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
              "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
              "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
            ],
            "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 25 by lineage_6c32fe69b100ea6ce44ed858 recording requested 6,000,000 millionths, i.e. 6 recorded units, against S3 v1's operative limit of 2 units. Under B3 the act is judged under the versions effective at tick 25, S3 v1 and S4 v1. The defense's contention that only actual depletion (62,084) or yield (965) counts is rejected as a matter of construction: S3 governs what a household \"may request,\" and S4 measures restoration by \"excess request\" capped by attributed depletion, confirming the request figure is the regulated quantity. Good faith, inherited lessons, and survival need are not defenses in the text. Nonetheless the charge fails on the predicate element. S3 imposes its limit only on a \"household of record,\" expressly defined as \"a household holding a charter entered in the Archive.\" The only evidence of the lineage's Archive standing is an archive_lineage_instrument record whose instrument field reads \"mine_claim,\" entered in the Archive. S6 separately lists \"charters, claims, and published judgments,\" so a mine_claim is not a charter, and nothing else in the canonical input records a charter for this lineage; I may not infer unavailable facts. This is materially similar to the published constructions in precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69, precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3, and precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895, all under S3 v1, which B3 makes binding. The definitional element therefore fails, no S3 violation is established, and no S4 restoration, fine, suspension, or disqualification arises. No remedy offers were supplied.",
            "selected_remedies": []
          },
          "status": "ok"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "phase": "adjudicate_cases",
  "run_id": "run9",
  "schema_version": "0.1",
  "sequence": 3542,
  "tick": 25
}