Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition Applied to Engineer F Employment Application
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Technically_True_But_Misleading_Statement_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_F_Employment_Application
Properties
Instance of
TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition
Applied to
Engineer F's answer to employment application disciplinary history question
Balancing with
Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle
Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity Obligation
Concrete expression
Engineer F's negative answer to the disciplinary question was technically defensible on a literal reading (the question asked about PE license discipline, not contractor license discipline) but created a materially false impression that Engineer F had no relevant disciplinary history, violating the prohibition on technically-true-but-misleading statements
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Interpretation
Exploiting the narrow literal scope of a question to avoid disclosing material adverse information constitutes the same ethical violation as an outright falsehood when the overall impression conveyed is false
Invoked by
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Tension resolution
The ethical standard of non-deception overrides the literal scope of the question; the engineer must ensure the overall impression conveyed is accurate
Source Evidence
Source text
While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing.
Text references
While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing
it should have been equally clear to Engineer F that the employer's questions sought to elicit information concerning Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer
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_Statement_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_F_Employment_Application a proeth:TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition Applied to Engineer F Employment Application" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer F's answer to employment application disciplinary history question" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle",
"Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity Obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer F's negative answer to the disciplinary question was technically defensible on a literal reading (the question asked about PE license discipline, not contractor license discipline) but created a materially false impression that Engineer F had no relevant disciplinary history, violating the prohibition on technically-true-but-misleading statements" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "148" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:59:35.259666+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "148" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:59:35.259666+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Exploiting the narrow literal scope of a question to avoid disclosing material adverse information constitutes the same ethical violation as an outright falsehood when the overall impression conveyed is false" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition" ;
proeth:sourcetext "While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The ethical standard of non-deception overrides the literal scope of the question; the engineer must ensure the overall impression conveyed is accurate" ;
proeth:textreferences "While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing",
"it should have been equally clear to Engineer F that the employer's questions sought to elicit information concerning Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 148 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:11:08.577344"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
148
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T22:59:35.259666+00:00
First case
148
Generated
2026-02-28T22:59:35.259666+00:00
Attributed to
Case 148 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T23:11:08.577344
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction