DP3

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

DP3

Does Engineer A's selective foregrounding of patent participation without team attribution constitute permissible resume emphasis under Case 72-11, or does it constitute prohibited misrepresentation by implication under Section II.5.a?

The Board must determine whether Engineer A's selective emphasis of his participation in jointly patented products — without explicitly claiming sole authorship but without disclosing team composition — falls within the permissible zone of contextual resume emphasis established in Case 72-11, or whether it crosses into prohibited misrepresentation by implication under the progressive NSPE Code standard. This decision point addresses the boundary between permissible selective framing and prohibited misleading implication.

Treat the selective foregrounding of patent participation as permissible contextual resume emphasis under Case 72-11, reasoning that Engineer A genuinely participated in the patented design work and is merely highlighting that genuine experience without making an explicit false claim of sole authorship.

Determine that Engineer A's selective framing crosses from permissible emphasis into prohibited misrepresentation by implication, because the natural and foreseeable inference drawn by Employer Y — that Engineer A was individually responsible for the patented designs — diverges materially from the factual record of shared team credit.

Apply the competence-deception boundary test from Case 72-11 to determine whether the emphasis deceived Employer Y about Engineer A's actual competence for the role sought — finding a violation only if the implied individual design capability materially exceeds Engineer A's actual individual capability, and not merely because team context was omitted.

Engineer A Selective-Emphasis Resume-Framing Engineer