Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresentation Violation
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/134#Engineer_A_BER_86-6_Team_Credit_Misrepresentation_Violation
Properties
Instance of
ResumeSelectiveEmphasisMisrepresentationProhibition
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ResumeSelectiveEmphasisMisrepresentationProhibition
Applied to
Resume submitted to Employer Y claiming credit for team-designed patented products
Balancing with
Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
Concrete expression
Engineer A's resume implied personal sole responsibility for products that were jointly designed by a six-person team, crossing from permissible emphasis into impermissible misrepresentation because the implication was intentionally designed to obscure the collaborative truth from a prospective employer
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
Unlike Doe's case, Engineer A did not merely emphasize genuine individual experience but implied sole credit for work that was demonstrably collaborative — the intent to obscure truth distinguishes this as an ethical violation rather than permissible emphasis
Invoked by
Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresenter
Tension resolution
The Board distinguishes this from Doe's case by the presence of intentional obscuring of collaborative truth, which crosses the threshold from permissible sales-technique emphasis to impermissible misrepresentation
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer. Such statements, said the Board, are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
Text references
Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
although Engineer A did not specifically state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer. Such statements, said the Board, are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
TTL
@prefix case134: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/134#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case134:Engineer_A_BER_86-6_Team_Credit_Misrepresentation_Violation a proeth:ResumeSelectiveEmphasisMisrepresentationProhibition,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresentation Violation" ;
proeth:appliedto "Resume submitted to Employer Y claiming credit for team-designed patented products" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's resume implied personal sole responsibility for products that were jointly designed by a six-person team, crossing from permissible emphasis into impermissible misrepresentation because the implication was intentionally designed to obscure the collaborative truth from a prospective employer" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "134" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:20:49.236900+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "134" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:20:49.236900+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Unlike Doe's case, Engineer A did not merely emphasize genuine individual experience but implied sole credit for work that was demonstrably collaborative — the intent to obscure truth distinguishes this as an ethical violation rather than permissible emphasis" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Misrepresenter" ;
proeth:principleclass "Resume Selective Emphasis Misrepresentation Prohibition" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer. Such statements, said the Board, are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board distinguishes this from Doe's case by the presence of intentional obscuring of collaborative truth, which crosses the threshold from permissible sales-technique emphasis to impermissible misrepresentation" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.",
"although Engineer A did not specifically state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, Engineer A implied such in a manner intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer. Such statements, said the Board, are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 134 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T21:30:32.617617"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 134 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
134
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T21:20:49.236900+00:00
First case
134
Generated
2026-02-28T21:20:49.236900+00:00
Attributed to
Case 134 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T21:30:32.617617
Generated by
ProEthica Case 134 Extraction