Engineer B Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Engineer_B_Adverse_Technical_Finding_Malicious_Intent_Non-Satisfaction_Non-Violation
Properties
Instance of
AdverseTechnicalFindingMaliciousIntentPrerequisiteNon-SatisfactionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AdverseTechnicalFindingMaliciousIntentPrerequisiteNon-SatisfactionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
Case context
Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report was self-serving and damaged Engineer A's professional reputation; Engineer B had concluded that changes were needed in the heating equipment originally specified by Engineer A.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer) and BER
Obligation statement
Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment did not constitute a violation of Section 12's prohibition on reputation injury, because there was no showing of malicious or false intent; the BER was obligated to recognize that adverse technical findings alone are insufficient to establish a reputation-injury violation.
Temporal scope
At the time of issuing the inspection report and at the time of ethics adjudication
Source Evidence
Source text
The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
Text references
On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
TTL
@prefix case169: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#> .
@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#> .
case169:Engineer_B_Adverse_Technical_Finding_Malicious_Intent_Non-Satisfaction_Non-Violation a proeth:AdverseTechnicalFindingMaliciousIntentPrerequisiteNon-SatisfactionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case169:Engineer_B_Honest_Disagreement_Permissibility_Heating_Equipment_Sizing_Conclusion,
case169:Engineer_B_Post-Occupancy_Inspection_Honest_Adverse_Finding_Non-Suppression ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case169:Engineer_B_Review_Without_Malicious_Intent ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report was self-serving and damaged Engineer A's professional reputation; Engineer B had concluded that changes were needed in the heating equipment originally specified by Engineer A." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case169:Adverse_Technical_Finding_Non-Equivalence_to_Malicious_Reputation_Injury_Applied_to_Engineer_B_Findings ;
proeth:discoveredincase "169" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "169" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer) and BER" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Prerequisite Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment did not constitute a violation of Section 12's prohibition on reputation injury, because there was no showing of malicious or false intent; the BER was obligated to recognize that adverse technical findings alone are insufficient to establish a reputation-injury violation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12" ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of issuing the inspection report and at the time of ethics adjudication" ;
proeth:textreferences "On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A",
"The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 169 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T22:36:17.049563"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 169 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
169
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
First case
169
Generated
2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
Attributed to
Case 169 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T22:36:17.049563
Generated by
ProEthica Case 169 Extraction