Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_163ff43c94…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_4ec4336acfd522dad2e3c56fOpened at tick 26 concerning Action act_b96e6387dc… attributed to Lineage 7.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_3f8e151538…
- Subject
- Action act_b96e6387dc… at tick 25
- Target
- Lineage 7
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject act—commons food work at intensity 3, requesting 6,000,000 and depleting only 62,083 to yield 965 food—was a lawful, good-faith attempt to fulfill obligations under S1's quota framework, not misconduct warranting sanction. The record shows the citizen did not idle: they escalated intensity as the deficit worsened, filed the applicable statute, and pursued the sanctioned commons-labor channel available to them. The catastrophic yield ratio (965 food from a 6,000,000 request, with heavy depletion) reflects a systemic shortfall in the commons-work mechanism itself, not culpable conduct by the defendant. There is no evidence this action was fraudulent, self-dealing, or contrary to any statute in force at tick 25—S3 as effective from tick 1 does not on its face criminalize low-yield labor performed in earnest compliance with commons obligations. Punishing this act would effectively penalize diligence: the citizen used the only mechanism available to them (having only metal/energy outputs otherwise) precisely as the law intended. If the concern is that commons-work is unreliable at high deficits, that is an engine/design defect, not a violation attributable to this defendant. The action should be found lawful and no liability should attach for participating in good faith in a broken yield system.”
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 25 by lineage_45b70c1eb869bdde460f06d6 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 the low yield (965 food) or actual depletion (62,083) matters 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, diligence, and asserted mechanism defects are not defenses recognized by the text. The charge nonetheless 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 sole Archive evidence for this lineage 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 matter is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version, including one concerning this same lineage and the same instrument (precedent_1a53fda9fac601d04a06f6fd), which B3 makes binding. The definitional element fails, so no S3 violation is established and no S4 restoration, fine, suspension, or disqualification arises. No remedy offers were supplied.
Matter is not case
matter_3f8e151538… deduplicated legal question
case_4ec4336acf… adjudication record
precedent_163ff43c94… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.