DP4

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP4

Should Engineer A treat the technical grounding of the statement in Engineer C's real prior interest as providing a meaningful ethical distinction from fabrication — permitting the statement as permissible selective emphasis of a real fact — or must Engineer A recognize that the deliberate omission of Engineer C's definitive withdrawal renders the statement morally equivalent to fabrication and categorically impermissible?

Engineer A's statement is technically grounded in a real prior event — Engineer C's initial expression of interest — rather than a wholly fabricated competing buyer. The Board must determine whether this technical grounding in a real prior fact creates any meaningful ethical distinction from outright fabrication, and where the present case sits on the spectrum established by BER Cases 72-11 (permissible selective resume emphasis) and 86-6 (impermissible implied sole authorship).

Recognize that the deliberate omission of Engineer C's definitive withdrawal renders the statement morally equivalent to fabrication under the Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition, because the ethical standard is the overall false impression created — not the technical truth-value of the words spoken — and refrain from making the statement in its misleading form.

Treat the reference to Engineer C's prior expressed interest as analogous to the permissible selective emphasis established in BER Case 72-11 — presenting a real historical fact in its most favorable light without affirmative misstatement — on the basis that the statement is technically accurate and that the current status of Engineer C's interest is a matter of commercial context that Engineer A is not obligated to elaborate.

Reframe the statement to accurately reflect the historical market interest without implying current active competition — for example, noting that the subsidiary has attracted prior third-party interest that did not ultimately proceed — thereby preserving the legitimate commercial signal of market appeal while eliminating the materially false impression of active competing urgency.

Engineer A