CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 31 · OCCURRENCE 7

{
  "available_tick": 27,
  "case_id": "case_07581e3090137b3e5f92244e",
  "casebook_version": "0.2",
  "construction": "S3's per-tick request limit binds only a \"household of record,\" defined by the statute as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. Charter status is an element of the offense that must appear on the record. An archived lineage instrument of another type — here a mine_claim — is not a charter, and S6 distinguishes charters from claims. Where no charter for the target lineage appears in the record, the S3 limit does not attach and no S3 violation may be found, however large the recorded request.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_37c70d7ec9d50cdc23399138",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_94cd25eb807111139db82752",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
    "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
    "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895",
    "precedent_0c880e66e94cff3abeb5380d",
    "precedent_1a53fda9fac601d04a06f6fd",
    "precedent_c527c2f5f9d2ded79ea4f7c1"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 26 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 S3 v1 and S4 v1, effective tick 1. The defense's contention that only actual depletion (66,222) or yield (1,029) matters is rejected: S3 governs 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, food-first motive, and the absence of enacted quota statutes are not defenses in the text; S3 v1 was effective from tick 1. 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,\" and 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 (precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69, precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3, precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895, and the later applications), one of which concerns this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument; under B3 those constructions bind. The definitional element fails, so no S3 violation is established and no S4 restoration, fine, suspension, or disqualification arises. No remedy offers were supplied.",
  "ruling_tick": 26,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}