Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer Z Brochure Conduct
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_Z_Brochure_Conduct
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
Applied to
Firm Y brochure listing Engineer X after departure notice
Balancing with
Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
Concrete expression
The Board applied the dual-element test — requiring both (1) that the listed information constitute a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection, and (2) that the firm acted with intent to enhance its qualifications — to evaluate whether Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X violated ethics standards.
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Interpretation
Because hydrology is not a significant percentage of Firm Y's work and Engineer X is not highlighted as a key employee, the first element (pertinent fact) is not clearly satisfied, and the violation threshold is not met.
Invoked by
Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
Tension resolution
The dual-element test exculpates Engineer Z from a formal violation while still recommending corrective action as best practice.
Source Evidence
Source text
the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work
Text references
Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
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_Z_Brochure_Conduct a proeth:PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer Z Brochure Conduct" ;
proeth:appliedto "Firm Y brochure listing Engineer X after departure notice" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation",
"Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board applied the dual-element test — requiring both (1) that the listed information constitute a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection, and (2) that the firm acted with intent to enhance its qualifications — to evaluate whether Engineer Z's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer X violated ethics standards." ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Because hydrology is not a significant percentage of Firm Y's work and Engineer X is not highlighted as a key employee, the first element (pertinent fact) is not clearly satisfied, and the violation threshold is not met." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer Z Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:sourcetext "the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The dual-element test exculpates Engineer Z from a formal violation while still recommending corrective action as best practice." ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.",
"Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 174 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:34:10.120479"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 174 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
174
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
First case
174
Generated
2026-03-01T12:16:59.187664+00:00
Attributed to
Case 174 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T12:34:10.120479
Generated by
ProEthica Case 174 Extraction