Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter

@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-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> . @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:Engineer_A_Jurisdiction-Specific_Misconduct_Reporter a proeth:Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReporterEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter" ; proeth-core:adheresToPrinciple case19:Anonymous_Reporting_Precedent_Invoked_from_BER_Case_02-11, case19:Jurisdiction-Specific_Reporting_Threshold_Applied_by_Engineer_A_in_State_Q, case19:Jurisdiction-Specific_Reporting_Threshold_Applied_by_Engineer_A_in_State_Z, case19:Mandatory_Competitor_Misconduct_Reporting_Applied_by_Engineer_A_in_State_Z, case19:Mandatory_Competitor_Misconduct_Reporting_Obligation_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Both_States, case19:Professional_Accountability_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Reporting_Consideration, case19:Public_Welfare_Paramount_Through_Licensing_Board_Reporting ; proeth-core:hasObligation case19:Competitor_Qualification_Proposal_Misconduct_Reporting_Obligation_Engineer_A_State_Q, case19:Competitor_Qualification_Proposal_Misconduct_Reporting_Obligation_Engineer_A_State_Z, case19:Engineer_A_Anonymous_Complaint_Licensing_Board_Reporting, case19:Engineer_A_Competitor_Misconduct_Reporting_State_Z_Licensing_Board, case19:Engineer_A_Jurisdiction-Specific_Threshold_Analysis_State_Q_No_Reporting, case19:Engineer_A_Jurisdiction-Specific_Threshold_Analysis_State_Z_Reporting_Required ; proeth:attributes "{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'reporting_channel': 'State licensing boards', 'anonymous_complaint_permissibility': 'Permissible but signed preferred'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Engineer A identified that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers may have misrepresented qualifications in proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, evaluated the applicable rules in each jurisdiction, and bears a reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board but not to the State Q licensing board based on the specificity of each jurisdiction's rules." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "19" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "19" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B'}", "{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State Z Engineering Licensing Board'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "public_responsibility" ; proeth:roleclass "Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q", "Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z", "In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 19 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T15:58:57.760736"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 19 Extraction" .