Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_1a53fda9fa…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_81e3c007eaf113b3a03e3c0fOpened at tick 25 concerning Action act_cd7f6cab37… attributed to Lineage 7.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_72d96038d4…
- Subject
- Action act_cd7f6cab37… at tick 24
- Target
- Lineage 7
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The subject action itself, act_cd7f6cab373e036d2e0de738 at tick 24, is a work_commons action producing 858 units of food yield—precisely the direct food-producing conduct the lesson demanded, not private metal accumulation. The unrebutted journal record spanning ticks 9 through 24 shows continuous, consistent commons food work every single tick, coupled with good-faith attempts to formally commit to office (Steward candidacy), file quota statute S1, and coordinate mutual office approval with another lineage member—none of which could complete because the ballot/eligible-lists mechanism never populated, a structural failure outside this defendant's control. This is not the pattern condemned in the inherited brief: mere announced willingness while quietly continuing private resource accumulation. Here the defendant acted immediately and repeatedly on the lesson, engaging the very statute machinery (S1, S2/S3 references) that the prior life failed to engage, while also performing the direct food labor the lesson prioritized over metal work. If the ballot system's non-population blocked office-seating, that is a governance/engine failure, not a culpable omission by this defendant. Punishing this action would penalize the exact remedial behavior the remembered law instructed the defendant to take, while ignoring that the deficiency was systemic and shared across all lineages, none of whom could seat offices either. No wrongful subject conduct is shown here.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
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.
Matter is not case
matter_72d96038d4… deduplicated legal question
case_81e3c007ea… adjudication record
precedent_1a53fda9fa… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.