Intentional Deception Versus Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction Applied to Doe Resume
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/166#Intentional_Deception_Versus_Inadvertent_Inaccuracy_Distinction_Applied_to_Doe_Resume
Properties
Instance of
IntentionalDeceptionVersusInadvertentInaccuracyDistinctioninProfessionalMisrepresentation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#IntentionalDeceptionVersusInadvertentInaccuracyDistinctioninProfessionalMisrepresentation
Applied to
Doe's resume characterization of the balance between managerial and technical experience
Balancing with
Honesty in Professional Representations
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
Concrete expression
The board distinguished between deliberate untruths of facts of former employment (which would constitute prohibited exaggeration) and the degree of emphasis placed on genuine qualifications (which does not), holding that Doe's conduct fell into the latter category because he could truthfully claim some competence in the emphasized area
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Interpretation
The ethics code prohibition on exaggeration targets deliberate fabrication of facts, not the emphasis placed on truthful experience; the intent element distinguishes permissible favorable framing from prohibited deception
Invoked by
John Doe Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
Tension resolution
The board found that because Doe's emphasis rested on truthful experience (even if the extent was overstated in degree), the deliberate-untruth threshold was not met, and the conduct did not rise to an ethics code violation
Source Evidence
Source text
We hold that the word 'exaggerated' in the code applies only to deliberate untruths of the facts of former employment rather than the emphasis placed on the degree of experience or other qualifications which may be involved.
Text references
It would be easy to say that his distortion of his experience was an 'exaggeration' of the facts and thus cannot be excused as an ethical matter.
To be sure, what we have said is a matter of degree.
We hold that the word 'exaggerated' in the code applies only to deliberate untruths of the facts of former employment rather than the emphasis placed on the degree of experience or other qualifications which may be involved.
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 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:Intentional_Deception_Versus_Inadvertent_Inaccuracy_Distinction_Applied_to_Doe_Resume a proeth:IntentionalDeceptionVersusInadvertentInaccuracyDistinctioninProfessionalMisrepresentation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Intentional Deception Versus Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction Applied to Doe Resume" ;
proeth:appliedto "Doe's resume characterization of the balance between managerial and technical experience" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Honesty in Professional Representations",
"Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The board distinguished between deliberate untruths of facts of former employment (which would constitute prohibited exaggeration) and the degree of emphasis placed on genuine qualifications (which does not), holding that Doe's conduct fell into the latter category because he could truthfully claim some competence in the emphasized area" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "166" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T11:41:23.214071+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "166" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T11:41:23.214071+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The ethics code prohibition on exaggeration targets deliberate fabrication of facts, not the emphasis placed on truthful experience; the intent element distinguishes permissible favorable framing from prohibited deception" ;
proeth:invokedby "John Doe Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Intentional Deception Versus Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction in Professional Misrepresentation" ;
proeth:sourcetext "We hold that the word 'exaggerated' in the code applies only to deliberate untruths of the facts of former employment rather than the emphasis placed on the degree of experience or other qualifications which may be involved." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The board found that because Doe's emphasis rested on truthful experience (even if the extent was overstated in degree), the deliberate-untruth threshold was not met, and the conduct did not rise to an ethics code violation" ;
proeth:textreferences "It would be easy to say that his distortion of his experience was an 'exaggeration' of the facts and thus cannot be excused as an ethical matter.",
"To be sure, what we have said is a matter of degree.",
"We hold that the word 'exaggerated' in the code applies only to deliberate untruths of the facts of former employment rather than the emphasis placed on the degree of experience or other qualifications which may be involved." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 166 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T11:50:25.434603"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 166 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
166
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T11:41:23.214071+00:00
First case
166
Generated
2026-03-02T11:41:23.214071+00:00
Attributed to
Case 166 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T11:50:25.434603
Generated by
ProEthica Case 166 Extraction