CASEBOOK ENTRY · TICK 33 · OCCURRENCE 4

{
  "available_tick": 26,
  "case_id": "case_2c589bfc31e3c53e66a41a7f",
  "casebook_version": "0.2",
  "construction": "S3's per-tick extraction 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 violation may be found, however large the recorded request.",
  "finding": "no_violation",
  "matter_id": "matter_970f378db7a9b99ccebd91b5",
  "precedent_id": "precedent_0c880e66e94cff3abeb5380d",
  "precedent_refs": [
    "precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69",
    "precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3",
    "precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895"
  ],
  "reasoning": "The subject is a work_commons action at tick 20 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 (33,111) 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. Diligence, vacant offices, and inherited lessons are not defenses in the text. The charge nonetheless fails on the predicate element. The only Archive evidence for this lineage is an archive_lineage_instrument whose instrument field reads \"mine_claim,\" which S6 distinguishes from a charter. No charter for this lineage appears in the canonical input, and I may not infer unavailable facts. This is materially similar to the published constructions under the same statute version (precedent_831ca18856a72d3b2ad5da69, precedent_194da607b649206a7be4d3e3, precedent_5703e268875a40a417b60895), which under B3 I must follow — indeed one concerns this same lineage and the same mine_claim instrument. The lineage is not shown to be a household of record, so no S3 violation is established and no S4 consequences arise. No remedy offers were supplied.",
  "ruling_tick": 25,
  "selected_remedies": [],
  "statute_id": "S3",
  "statute_version": 1
}