Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation for Engineer X
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Non-Prominent_Personnel_Listing_Materiality_Exculpation_for_Engineer_X
Properties
Instance of
Non-ProminentPersonnelListingMaterialityExculpationPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Non-ProminentPersonnelListingMaterialityExculpationPrinciple
Applied to
Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X post-departure
Balancing with
Honesty
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
Concrete expression
The Board applied the materiality exculpation principle to find that Engineer X's listing in Firm Y's brochure and resume — where Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee, hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services, and Engineer X was not the sole hydrology expert — did not constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts sufficient to establish an ethical violation.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
Where a departing engineer appears incidentally in a general personnel list without prominent designation and their specialty is not central to the firm's practice, the materiality threshold for pertinent fact misrepresentation is not crossed.
Invoked by
Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
Tension resolution
The low materiality of Engineer X's listing, combined with the absence of enhancement intent, collectively precluded a violation finding.
Source Evidence
Source text
the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
Text references
Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.
Nor is there any effort or attempt on the part of Firm Y to highlight the activities or achievements of Engineer X in the field of hydrology.
there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
TTL
@prefix case174: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#> .
@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#> .
case174:Non-Prominent_Personnel_Listing_Materiality_Exculpation_for_Engineer_X a proeth:Non-ProminentPersonnelListingMaterialityExculpationPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation for Engineer X" ;
proeth:appliedto "Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X post-departure" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Honesty",
"Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board applied the materiality exculpation principle to find that Engineer X's listing in Firm Y's brochure and resume — where Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee, hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services, and Engineer X was not the sole hydrology expert — did not constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts sufficient to establish an ethical violation." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Where a departing engineer appears incidentally in a general personnel list without prominent designation and their specialty is not central to the firm's practice, the materiality threshold for pertinent fact misrepresentation is not crossed." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer Z Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The low materiality of Engineer X's listing, combined with the absence of enhancement intent, collectively precluded a violation finding." ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.",
"Nor is there any effort or attempt on the part of Firm Y to highlight the activities or achievements of Engineer X in the field of hydrology.",
"there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.",
"this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 174 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:34:10.127421"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 174 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
174
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
First case
174
Generated
2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
Attributed to
Case 174 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T12:34:10.127421
Generated by
ProEthica Case 174 Extraction