Mixed-Authorship Attribution Violation by Engineer B
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/173#Mixed-Authorship_Attribution_Violation_by_Engineer_B
Properties
Instance of
Mixed-AuthorshipDesignDocumentAttributionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Mixed-AuthorshipDesignDocumentAttributionObligation
Applied to
Engineer B's subdivision plan set combining Engineer A's and Engineer B's design elements
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Concrete expression
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, without indicating on any sheet which elements represented Engineer A's work and which represented Engineer B's own work
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Interpretation
The commingling of two engineers' design work without attribution on the plan documents constitutes misleading conduct — whether intentional or unwitting — because it creates a false impression about the authorship and professional accountability for each design element
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The Board found that the client's instruction to use Engineer A's plans as a guide did not excuse Engineer B's failure to attribute authorship of design elements on the plan documents
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.
We view the conduct of Engineer B under the facts of this case to be misleading either intentionally or unwittingly.
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 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:Mixed-Authorship_Attribution_Violation_by_Engineer_B a proeth:Mixed-AuthorshipDesignDocumentAttributionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Mixed-Authorship Attribution Violation by Engineer B" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's subdivision plan set combining Engineer A's and Engineer B's design elements" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "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, without indicating on any sheet which elements represented Engineer A's work and which represented Engineer B's own work" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "173" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T14:28:53.714541+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "173" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T14:28:53.714541+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The commingling of two engineers' design work without attribution on the plan documents constitutes misleading conduct — whether intentional or unwitting — because it creates a false impression about the authorship and professional accountability for each design element" ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Mixed-Authorship Design Document Attribution Obligation" ;
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:tensionresolution "The Board found that the client's instruction to use Engineer A's plans as a guide did not excuse Engineer B's failure to attribute authorship of design elements on the plan documents" ;
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.",
"We view the conduct of Engineer B under the facts of this case to be misleading either intentionally or unwittingly." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 173 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T14:41:54.507701"^^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
2026-03-01T14:28:53.714541+00:00
First case
173
Generated
2026-03-01T14:28:53.714541+00:00
Attributed to
Case 173 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T14:41:54.507701
Generated by
ProEthica Case 173 Extraction