Engineer B Mixed-Authorship Successor Design Attribution Case 82-5
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/173#Engineer_B_Mixed-Authorship_Successor_Design_Attribution_Case_82-5
Properties
Instance of
Mixed-AuthorshipSuccessorDesignAttributionandDifferentiationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Mixed-AuthorshipSuccessorDesignAttributionandDifferentiationObligation
Case context
Rather than starting from scratch, Engineer B used Engineer A's sealed plans as a guide and produced a redesigned plan set that commingled Engineer A's original design elements with Engineer B's own modifications, never indicating which elements derived from which engineer's work.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B (Successor Design Engineer)
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated to clearly identify and differentiate in the redesigned plan set which design elements represented Engineer A's original work and which represented Engineer B's own redesign work, rather than commingling the two without attribution in a 'mixed and matched' plan set.
Temporal scope
At the time of producing and submitting the redesigned plan set
Relationships
prevailsOver
Subdivision Client Sealed Plan Transfer Non-Authorization of Success or Alteration Case 82-5
derivedFromPrinciple
Mixed-Authorship Attribution Violation by Engineer B
Source Evidence
Source text
Rather than starting from scratch and redesigning the project, Engineer B appears to have 'mixed and matched' the plans prepared by Engineer A with what he thought would be appropriate, never indicating which represented the work of Engineer A and which represented his own work
Text references
Rather than starting from scratch and redesigning the project, Engineer B appears to have 'mixed and matched' the plans prepared by Engineer A with what he thought would be appropriate, never indicating which represented the work of Engineer A and which represented his own work
We think such conduct violates Section III.9. of the Code
TTL
@prefix case173: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/173#> .
@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#> .
case173:Engineer_B_Mixed-Authorship_Successor_Design_Attribution_Case_82-5 a proeth:Mixed-AuthorshipSuccessorDesignAttributionandDifferentiationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Mixed-Authorship Successor Design Attribution Case 82-5" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case173:Engineer_B_Mixed-Authorship_Design_Submission_Without_Delineation ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case173:Subdivision_Client_Sealed_Plan_Transfer_Non-Authorization_of_Successor_Alteration_Case_82-5 ;
proeth:casecontext "Rather than starting from scratch, Engineer B used Engineer A's sealed plans as a guide and produced a redesigned plan set that commingled Engineer A's original design elements with Engineer B's own modifications, never indicating which elements derived from which engineer's work." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case173:Mixed-Authorship_Attribution_Violation_by_Engineer_B ;
proeth:discoveredincase "173" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T14:31:07.586453+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "173" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T14:31:07.586453+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B (Successor Design Engineer)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Mixed-Authorship Successor Design Attribution and Differentiation Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B was obligated to clearly identify and differentiate in the redesigned plan set which design elements represented Engineer A's original work and which represented Engineer B's own redesign work, rather than commingling the two without attribution in a 'mixed and matched' plan set." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Rather than starting from scratch and redesigning the project, Engineer B appears to have 'mixed and matched' the plans prepared by Engineer A with what he thought would be appropriate, never indicating which represented the work of Engineer A and which represented his own work" ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of producing and submitting the redesigned plan set" ;
proeth:textreferences "Rather than starting from scratch and redesigning the project, Engineer B appears to have 'mixed and matched' the plans prepared by Engineer A with what he thought would be appropriate, never indicating which represented the work of Engineer A and which represented his own work",
"We think such conduct violates Section III.9. of the Code" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 173 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T14:41:54.510339"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 173 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
173
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T14:31:07.586453+00:00
First case
173
Generated
2026-03-01T14:31:07.586453+00:00
Attributed to
Case 173 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T14:41:54.510339
Generated by
ProEthica Case 173 Extraction