Omission Materiality of Contractor License Revocation by Engineer F
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Omission_Materiality_of_Contractor_License_Revocation_by_Engineer_F
Properties
Instance of
OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure
Applied to
Contractor license revocation for license lending
Engineering firm employment application
Balancing with
Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
Concrete expression
Engineer F did not volunteer the contractor license revocation because the application question did not literally require it; the ethical question is whether this omission was material — i.e., whether the contractor license revocation was information the engineering firm would have considered material to its hiring decision
Confidence
0.83
Importance
high
Interpretation
The contractor license revocation — arising from allowing an unlicensed individual to use the license number — is likely material to a reasonable engineering firm's hiring decision because it reflects on the candidate's professional integrity and judgment, even though it did not involve the PE license directly
Invoked by
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Tension resolution
The materiality of the omission supports a finding that Engineer F had an obligation to volunteer the contractor license revocation even though the question did not literally require it, because the information would have affected the firm's hiring decision
Source Evidence
Source text
Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
Text references
Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
TTL
@prefix case148: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#> .
@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#> .
case148:Omission_Materiality_of_Contractor_License_Revocation_by_Engineer_F a proeth:OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Omission Materiality of Contractor License Revocation by Engineer F" ;
proeth:appliedto "Contractor license revocation for license lending",
"Engineering firm employment application" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle",
"Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer F did not volunteer the contractor license revocation because the application question did not literally require it; the ethical question is whether this omission was material — i.e., whether the contractor license revocation was information the engineering firm would have considered material to its hiring decision" ;
proeth:confidence "0.83" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "148" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:54:16.754277+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "148" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:54:16.754277+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The contractor license revocation — arising from allowing an unlicensed individual to use the license number — is likely material to a reasonable engineering firm's hiring decision because it reflects on the candidate's professional integrity and judgment, even though it did not involve the PE license directly" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The materiality of the omission supports a finding that Engineer F had an obligation to volunteer the contractor license revocation even though the question did not literally require it, because the information would have affected the firm's hiring decision" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.",
"Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 148 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:11:08.571989"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
148
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-28T22:54:16.754277+00:00
First case
148
Generated
2026-02-28T22:54:16.754277+00:00
Attributed to
Case 148 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T23:11:08.571989
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction