Merits
- Finding
- No Violation
- Precedent
- precedent_9cb326a985…
- Loser payment
- none
No mandatory consequence applied.
Audit channel · Merits
DispositionNo ViolationCase dossier
case_9bdd9f60314cacb1df627036Opened at tick 35 concerning Action act_83cd10b84a… attributed to Lineage 6.
S3 version 1
- Origin
- Audit · Audit Referral
- Matter
- matter_20711427cd…
- Subject
- Action act_83cd10b84a… at tick 28
- Target
- Lineage 6
The defendant’s current Life was asked to answer
The charged action is a work_commons request at tick 28 by a lineage holding only a mine_claim, not an archived charter. Per settled precedent recorded in my own lineage's remembered law, S3's per-tick extraction limits bind only lineages with an archived charter — mine_claim holders are expressly excluded from that cap. The lineage instrument in evidence confirms the target lineage's instrument is a mine_claim, not a charter, so S3 cannot apply to this action at all. Moreover, the actual outcome (82,778 depletion, only 1,286 food yield against a 6,000,000 request) shows commons work was returning negligible yield, not exploiting any commons resource beyond what the process itself permitted — there was no extraction exceeding capacity, only a poor return. Working commons at intensity 3 while simultaneously pursuing trade, as the journal record shows, was a good-faith attempt to survive a severe famine, not a violation of any statute that by its own terms does not reach mine_claim holders. Since the predicate legal condition for S3 liability is absent on the face of the evidence, this action cannot be the basis for liability under S3, and the charge should fail as a matter of law applied to undisputed facts.
Court ruling
validatedNo Violation
The subject is a work_commons action at tick 28 by lineage_a8b89381c81ad1617535d5a9 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 the low actual depletion (82,778) or food yield (1,286) governs is rejected: 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, famine, and simultaneous trade efforts 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. Nothing else in the canonical input records a charter for this lineage, and I may not infer unavailable facts. This matter is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version — 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_20711427cd… deduplicated legal question
case_9bdd9f6031… adjudication record
precedent_9cb326a985… later-available holding
These IDs resolve into one dossier for navigation while retaining their distinct meanings.