DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/19#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, or should the reporting obligation be calibrated to the jurisdiction-specific content of each state's rules — reporting only where a clear rule violation is identifiable and declining to report where the applicable rules do not independently prohibit the practice?
Focus
Engineer A: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Calibrated to Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Violations
Option1
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation under State Z's project-level attribution requirement, while declining to report to the State Q board where no clear rule violation is identifiable
Option2
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z on the basis that the NSPE Code's general honesty standard is sufficient to establish a violation in both jurisdictions without separately reviewing each state's specific licensing rules
Option3
Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to any licensing board, citing Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor and the risk that the reporting mechanism would function as an instrument of competitive harm rather than genuine public protection
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case19: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/19#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case19:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, or should the reporting obligation be calibrated to the jurisdiction-specific content of each state's rules — reporting only where a clear rule violation is identifiable and declining to report where the applicable rules do not independently prohibit the practice?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Calibrated to Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Violations" ;
proeth:option1 "Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation under State Z's project-level attribution requirement, while declining to report to the State Q board where no clear rule violation is identifiable" ;
proeth:option2 "Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z on the basis that the NSPE Code's general honesty standard is sufficient to establish a violation in both jurisdictions without separately reviewing each state's specific licensing rules" ;
proeth:option3 "Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to any licensing board, citing Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor and the risk that the reporting mechanism would function as an instrument of competitive harm rather than genuine public protection" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T16:18:09.595888"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 19 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-25T16:18:09.595888
Generated by
ProEthica Case 19 Extraction