Technically True But Misleading Answer by Engineer F
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Technically_True_But_Misleading_Answer_by_Engineer_F
Properties
Instance of
TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition
Applied to
Engineering firm employment application disciplinary history question
Balancing with
Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle
Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
Concrete expression
Engineer F answered 'no' to a question about PE discipline/license revocation, which was literally accurate (the PE license was never revoked), but the answer concealed a contractor license revocation for conduct reflecting on professional character — potentially creating a false overall impression of a clean disciplinary record
Confidence
0.85
Importance
high
Interpretation
The prohibition on technically true but misleading statements requires assessment of whether the overall impression conveyed by Engineer F's 'no' answer was materially false, even if literally accurate within the narrow scope of the question as asked
Invoked by
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Tension resolution
The resolution depends on whether the question's explicit limitation to 'professional engineering' discipline and PE license actions means Engineer F's negative answer was within scope and not misleading, or whether the contractor license revocation was sufficiently connected to professional character to make the negative answer misleading in overall impression
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
Text references
Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?'
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:Technically_True_But_Misleading_Answer_by_Engineer_F a proeth:TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Technically True But Misleading Answer by Engineer F" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineering firm employment application disciplinary history question" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle",
"Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer F answered 'no' to a question about PE discipline/license revocation, which was literally accurate (the PE license was never revoked), but the answer concealed a contractor license revocation for conduct reflecting on professional character — potentially creating a false overall impression of a clean disciplinary record" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
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 prohibition on technically true but misleading statements requires assessment of whether the overall impression conveyed by Engineer F's 'no' answer was materially false, even if literally accurate within the narrow scope of the question as asked" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The resolution depends on whether the question's explicit limitation to 'professional engineering' discipline and PE license actions means Engineer F's negative answer was within scope and not misleading, or whether the contractor license revocation was sufficiently connected to professional character to make the negative answer misleading in overall impression" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.",
"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.",
"On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 148 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:11:08.570682"^^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
2026-02-28T23:11:08.570682
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction