Case dossier

The subject is a work_commons action at tick 28 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 28, S3 v1 and S4 v1. The defense's contention that only actual depletion (82,778) or the 1,286 food yield 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 that the request figure is the regulated quantity. Good faith, transparency, concurrent trades, and survival need are not defenses recognized by the text; the canonical input also supplies S3 v1 verbatim, answering the complaint that no statutory text was quoted. 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. Nothing else in the record supplies a charter, and I may not infer unavailable facts. This matter is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version — including precedent_c527c2f5f9d2ded79ea4f7c1 and precedent_8b88de0080a6b8a2935d4dde, which concern 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.