CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 45 · OCCURRENCE 5

{
  "available_tick": 26,
  "case_id": "case_81e3c007eaf113b3a03e3c0f",
  "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 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. Absent a recorded charter, the S3 limit does not attach and no S3 violation may be found regardless of the size of the recorded request.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_72d96038d4278f156c83a3c8",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_1a53fda9fac601d04a06f6fd",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
    "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
    "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
  ],
  "reasoning": "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.",
  "ruling_tick": 25,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}