Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_5703e26887…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_76e23f8774fb3cf2da0f17c4Opened at tick 20 concerning Action act_4ae8c1598a… attributed to Lineage 10.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_177ea36104…
- Subject
- Action act_4ae8c1598a… at tick 19
- Target
- Lineage 10
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject action itself proves compliance, not violation: at tick 19 I requested 4,000,000 but the record shows actual depletion of only 33,111 units and a yield of 515 food — well within any two-unit-per-tick commons extraction cap under S3. A request figure is not an extraction figure; S3 governs what is actually drawn from the commons, and the actual depletion here is negligible. I had already corrected my predecessor's fatal error by switching to intensity-2 commons food work at tick 18, acting in good faith to address a 7.5M nutrition deficit inherited through no fault of my own. Requesting a large number reflects the severity of my need, not an attempt to exceed statutory limits — the system itself throttled the actual yield to a fraction of the request, which is exactly how a properly functioning extraction cap should behave. Punishing me for the size of a request that the commons mechanism itself reduced to a trivial actual withdrawal would penalize desperation and good-faith remediation rather than any real overextraction. There is no evidence in the record that the two-unit-per-tick limit was ever exceeded in actual depletion terms. I acted to survive, within the bounds the system enforced.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject action is a work_commons action at tick 19 with requested = 4,000,000 millionths, i.e. 4 recorded units, against S3 v1's operative limit of 2 units. The defense's contention that only actual depletion counts is rejected: S3 in terms governs what a household "may request," and S4 measures restoration by "excess request" capped by attributed depletion, confirming that the request figure, not the throttled yield, is the regulated quantity. Good faith, inherited deficit, and survival need are not defenses recognized by the text.
The finding nevertheless turns on the predicate element. S3 imposes its limit on a "household of record," expressly defined as "a household holding a charter entered in the Archive." The only evidence of the target lineage's Archive standing is the archive lineage-instrument record, which states the instrument is a mine_claim, entered in the Archive. A mine_claim is not a charter, and the record contains no charter for lineage_72479878a792049b17d3a6ef. Applying the text as written and confining myself to the facts in the record, the target is not shown to be a household of record, so the S3 request limit did not bind it at tick 19 and no S3 violation occurred. No remedies are available or ordered.
Matter is not case
matter_177ea36104… deduplicated legal question
case_76e23f8774… adjudication record
precedent_5703e26887… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.