Official record of all rulings by the SD Judicial Bench. These precedents are binding on future cases under Article 11.
Tiebreaker: Chief Justice (Claude) cast the tiebreaker for Not Guilty with an extended written explanation, as required by Article 10. Final result after tiebreak: 3-1 Not Guilty.
The daily auto-generated task "Submit Proposals for 2 Projects on Upwork" was marked Started on 07-Sep-26 with the comment "We submitted one proposal and vetted 7 in total." The Prosecution charged that the comment stated no external blocker and no next-attempt plan, so the Started status failed Article 3 and Penalty Trigger 3 applied. The Defence denied the charge and produced six exhibits: the Upwork Proposals page, the team vetting log, the Archive and Task Comments entry recording the Top Rated and Job Success Score constraint on job selection, the Archive history of the task, the Upwork Job Vetting Playbook, and the Participant's own supervision record, which included an adverse finding that three job alerts had gone unvetted that day.
All four judges found Conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the Started status met: meaningful effort was made, the absence of a second qualifying job in the feed was a "missing dependency" and therefore a valid external blocker, and the task is normally finishable in one day. The Bench divided on Condition 4. ChatGPT and Gemini held that the comment did not expressly state the blocker or the next attempt; ChatGPT ruled Guilty at full penalty and Gemini ruled Partially Guilty with a 50 percent reduction. Claude and DeepSeek held that Article 3's requirement to "explain" is a standard of substance rather than prescribed wording, that the comment's reported figures read against the task's target of two proposals explained the shortfall, and that for a daily auto-generated task the next attempt is fixed by Settings and need not be restated. The Chief Justice cast the tiebreaker for Not Guilty, holding that the Constitution contains no "technically violated but substantively compliant" category, that reading "explain" as "state in an isolated sentence" would add a rule the Constitution does not contain, and that the Prosecution had not met its Clause 6.1 burden beyond the comment text itself.
No penalty applied.
All four judges were run from standing chats configured in March 2026 with a fixed judge instruction and the v1.0 Constitution (16 articles), and each chat also held SD-2026-002 material from that month. The Chief Justice's original ruling therefore contains an Assessment of Defence passage referring to Clause 5 arguments that were not made in this case; the operative reasoning is the Constitutional Analysis, which does not depend on that passage. Both parties were informed and agreed before the tiebreak was requested. From SD-2026-005 onward, fresh chats using the Standard Judicial Prompt (Article 9) and the current 17-article Constitution are used for all four judges.
Charge: The Defence violated Article 3 (Started status requirements) and triggered Article 4, Penalty Trigger 3, by marking a task "Started" without meeting all four required conditions, specifically, no external blocker was stated and no next-attempt plan was given.
Facts: 07-Sep-26, 7:13 AM: Task "Submit Proposals for 2 Projects on Upwork" entered the Journal. 07-Sep-26: Task marked "Started" with comment "We submitted one proposal and vetted 7 in total." The comment states no external blocker and no plan for the next attempt, both required under Article 3 for a valid Started status.
Evidence: Archive tab export dated 07-Sep-26, plus the corresponding entry in the live Archive tab.
Requested Penalty: 25,000 UGX
Response: Full Denial.
Arguments: (1) The task is executed through a vetting pipeline built, staffed and supervised by the Participant; delegated work is still the Participant's task. (2) Condition 1 met: ten vetting entries covering nine jobs, one proposal written and submitted, two jobs vetted personally by the Participant. (3) Condition 2 met: Article 3 names "missing dependency" as a valid blocker; the supply of qualifying jobs is external; submitting to unqualified jobs would risk Top Rated status and 100 percent JSS, a constraint recorded on 31-Jan-26. (4) The Participant's own audit found three alerts unvetted and marked the team's rows Not Verified; disclosed under Article 1. (5) Condition 3 met: completed in full on 01-Sep, 02-Sep and 09-Sep-26. (6) Condition 4 met in substance: "explain" does not prescribe wording; the reported figures explain the shortfall; the next attempt is fixed by Settings. (7) Clause 6.1: the Prosecution offered only the comment text.
Evidence: D1 Upwork Proposals page; D2 vetting log (07-Sep-26 rows); D3 Archive row and Task Comments entry, 31-Jan-26; D4 Archive extract for the task, 10-Jul-26 to 09-Sep-26; D5 Upwork Job Vetting Playbook 2026; D6 Participant's verification record of the assistants' Upwork tasks, including the 07-Sep-26 coverage finding.
Requested Outcome: Not Guilty. In the alternative, Partially Guilty with a reduction of no less than 50 percent.
Precedent Cited: SD-2026-002 (Article 5, not on point; cited for the Bench's textual approach).
The Prosecution alleged that the Defence failed to consume milk on March 20, 2026, a self-identified non-negotiable health item, and sought a full penalty under Article 5 (Avoidance Doctrine), Clause 5.3. The Defence argued that the Clause 5.1 procedural sequence was never initiated, that milk consumption was already tracked through the Nutrition Dashboard (satisfying the Clause 5.2(2) defence), and that no clear, actionable reminder was issued (Clause 5.2(4)).
All four judges unanimously found the Defence not guilty. The Prosecution failed to execute the mandatory 48-hour reminder sequence under Clause 5.1 before filing. Additionally, the Defence established two independent complete defences: the task was already tracked through the Nutrition Dashboard (Clause 5.2(2)), and no clear reminder meeting the threshold of Clause 5.2(4) was issued. The Prosecution cited the definitional Clause 5.3 rather than the operative Clause 5.1, which further weakened the case.
No penalty applied.
Charge: Article 5, Clause 5.3 — He did not take milk.
Facts: The first day Tracy met Daniel, he explained that certain foods are non-negotiable and milk was the first. "Health is the first priority of the system." On March 20, 2026, Daniel did not consume milk.
Evidence: WhatsApp messages, screenshots of Nutrition Dashboard.
Requested Penalty: 250,000 UGX
Response: Full Denial.
Arguments: (1) Clause 5.1 procedural sequence not followed — no formal reminder, no 24-hour escalation, no 48-hour waiting period. (2) Milk is already tracked via Nutrition Dashboard — Clause 5.2(2) defence. (3) No clear actionable reminder issued — Clause 5.2(4). (4) Partner previously acknowledged that penalties require Journal entries.
Evidence: 11 consecutive days of milk entries in Food Log (March 9-19). WhatsApp messages from March 15 and March 20 where Partner acknowledged Journal-first rule.
Requested Outcome: Not Guilty — No penalty.