Doe Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/166#Doe_Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Misrepresentation_Test_Violation
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
Case context
Doe's revised resume was a calculated strategy — he 'devised' it specifically to overcome repeated rejections — establishing intentionality. The balance of technical versus managerial experience was directly pertinent to the management positions sought.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
John Doe
Obligation statement
John Doe was obligated to ensure that his resume satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) the balance of managerial versus technical experience is a pertinent fact — directly decisive to a prospective employer's hiring decision for a management role — and (2) Doe's deliberate restructuring of the resume was made with the intent and purpose of enhancing his apparent managerial qualifications beyond what was accurate; both elements being satisfied, the resume constituted a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
Temporal scope
At the time of preparing and distributing the revised resume
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Doe Exaggeration-Emphasis Threshold Determination, First Ethics Board Ruling on Code Section 3e Exaggeration-Emphasis Boundary
derivedFromPrinciple
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test Applied To Doe
Source Evidence
Source text
he devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility
Text references
After being turned down repeatedly for technical managerial or administrative positions because his resume showed a lack of such experience
he devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility
TTL
@prefix case166: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/166#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case166:Doe_Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Misrepresentation_Test_Violation a proeth:PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Doe Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Violation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case166:Doe_Genuine_Competence_Prerequisite_Managerial_Emphasis_Aerospace_Resume ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case166:Doe_Exaggeration-Emphasis_Threshold_Determination,
case166:First_Ethics_Board_Ruling_on_Code_Section_3e_Exaggeration-Emphasis_Boundary ;
proeth:casecontext "Doe's revised resume was a calculated strategy — he 'devised' it specifically to overcome repeated rejections — establishing intentionality. The balance of technical versus managerial experience was directly pertinent to the management positions sought." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case166:Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_To_Doe ;
proeth:discoveredincase "166" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T11:37:22.168529+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "166" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T11:37:22.168529+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "John Doe" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "John Doe was obligated to ensure that his resume satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) the balance of managerial versus technical experience is a pertinent fact — directly decisive to a prospective employer's hiring decision for a management role — and (2) Doe's deliberate restructuring of the resume was made with the intent and purpose of enhancing his apparent managerial qualifications beyond what was accurate; both elements being satisfied, the resume constituted a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a." ;
proeth:sourcetext "he devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility" ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of preparing and distributing the revised resume" ;
proeth:textreferences "After being turned down repeatedly for technical managerial or administrative positions because his resume showed a lack of such experience",
"he devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 166 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T11:50:25.431008"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 166 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
166
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T11:37:22.168529+00:00
First case
166
Generated
2026-03-02T11:37:22.168529+00:00
Attributed to
Case 166 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T11:50:25.431008
Generated by
ProEthica Case 166 Extraction