Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_X_Listing
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
Applied to
Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X after departure
Balancing with
Honesty
Transparency
Concrete expression
The Board applied the two-element test to Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and resume after departure, finding that neither element was satisfied: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee (no pertinent fact misrepresentation), and the conduct appeared to be oversight without intent to enhance qualifications.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
Both elements — pertinent fact misrepresentation AND intent to enhance — must be present simultaneously for a violation; the absence of either negates the ethical violation.
Invoked by
Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
Tension resolution
Because Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee and the firm's conduct appeared to be oversight rather than deliberate enhancement, the Board declined to find a violation despite the factual inaccuracy.
Source Evidence
Source text
We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
Text references
We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
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:Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_X_Listing a proeth:PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer X Listing" ;
proeth:appliedto "Firm Y brochure and resume listing Engineer X after departure" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Honesty",
"Transparency" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board applied the two-element test to Engineer Z's continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and resume after departure, finding that neither element was satisfied: Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee (no pertinent fact misrepresentation), and the conduct appeared to be oversight without intent to enhance qualifications." ;
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 "Both elements — pertinent fact misrepresentation AND intent to enhance — must be present simultaneously for a violation; the absence of either negates the ethical violation." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:sourcetext "We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Because Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee and the firm's conduct appeared to be oversight rather than deliberate enhancement, the Board declined to find a violation despite the factual inaccuracy." ;
proeth:textreferences "We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.",
"the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'",
"there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 174 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:34:10.120324"^^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
2026-03-01T12:34:10.120324
Generated by
ProEthica Case 174 Extraction