Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_cba6d6b875…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_5c880a06e0d7870642f1136bOpened at tick 35 concerning Action act_2240a08f2a… attributed to Lineage 6.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_2a622c5684…
- Subject
- Action act_2240a08f2a… at tick 27
- Target
- Lineage 6
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The charged conduct is a single work_commons action at tick 27: intensity 2, requesting 4,000,000, yielding only 1,286 food after depletion. Nothing in the subject material or evidence shows this action violated S3. As my remembered law makes clear, courts have repeatedly held that S3's per-tick extraction limits bind only lineages operating under an archived charter — and the lineage instrument in evidence identifies our holding as a mine_claim, not a charter. That precedent squarely controls here: S3 simply does not apply to claim-holders, so this action cannot be an extraction-limit violation as a matter of law. Nor is there any evidence of bad faith or concealment — the commons work was disclosed openly, undertaken as a stopgap measure while the lineage was simultaneously pursuing trade to resolve a severe nutrition deficit, exactly the diversified, non-passive strategy that sound stewardship required. The low yield (1,286 food from a 4,000,000 request) reflects commons depletion, not any wrongdoing, and actually undercuts any theory that this action caused harm — it was economically negligible. Absent an applicable statute and absent any showing of wrongful intent or effect, there is no basis for liability. I ask that the charge be dismissed.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 27 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 the versions effective at tick 27, S3 v1 and S4 v1. The defense's contention that the low yield (1,286 food) or actual depletion (82,778) governs is rejected as a matter of construction: S3 regulates 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, disclosure, remedial motive, and survival need 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 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 several concerning this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument — 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_2a622c5684… deduplicated legal question
case_5c880a06e0… adjudication record
precedent_cba6d6b875… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.