DP6

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

DP6

Under the progressive NSPE Code standard, does Engineer A's omission of team context constitute a prohibited misrepresentation regardless of intent, or does the intent-versus-inadvertence distinction determine whether a violation occurred at all?

The Board must determine how the progressive tightening of the NSPE Code — from prohibiting false statements under earlier standards to prohibiting misleading implications under Section II.5.a — applies to Engineer A's conduct, and whether the intent-versus-inadvertence distinction affects whether a violation occurred or only the severity of the sanction. This decision point addresses the reconciliation of the intentional deception principle with the omission materiality standard under the progressive code.

Determine that the omission of team composition constitutes a prohibited misrepresentation under the progressive code standard regardless of whether Engineer A intended to deceive, because the standard focuses on the impression created in Employer Y's mind and the omitted information is objectively material to the hiring decision.

Limit the ethical violation finding to cases of intentional deception, treating inadvertent omissions of team context as warranting correction rather than condemnation, and finding no violation where Engineer A did not subjectively intend to create a false impression of sole authorship.

Find a violation based on the objective materiality of the omission under the progressive code standard, but calibrate the severity of the ethical finding and the appropriateness of professional consequences based on whether the omission was intentional or inadvertent — treating intent as relevant to sanction but not to whether a violation occurred.

Engineer A Progressive-Code Intentional-Omission Assessor