Engineer B Prior Employer Credit Scope Limitation State Q State Z
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/19#Engineer_B_Prior_Employer_Credit_Scope_Limitation_State_Q_State_Z
Properties
Instance of
Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeLimitationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeLimitationObligation
Case context
Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, with varying degrees of attribution specificity.
Compliance status
partial
Confidence
0.89
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated to limit claims of credit for prior-employer projects to their specific personal contributions and roles on those projects, and to ensure that any such claims were accompanied by clear disclosure of the prior employer's role and Engineer B's specific involvement — an obligation partially met in State Q through a prefatory notice but not met in State Z where project-level attribution was required.
Temporal scope
At the time of preparing and submitting qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer B State Z Attribution Non-Compliance
derivedFromPrinciple
Intellectual Integrity in Authorship Invoked By Engineer B Pri or Employer Projects
Source Evidence
Source text
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
Text references
State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
With respect to giving credit to proprietary interests as referenced in Professional Obligation III.9, Engineer B's previous projects were not technically proprietary and Engineer B gave credit to both the previous firm and the clients.
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
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-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_B_Prior_Employer_Credit_Scope_Limitation_State_Q_State_Z a proeth:Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeLimitationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Prior Employer Credit Scope Limitation State Q State Z" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case19:Engineer_B_Project-Level_Attribution_State_Z_Proposal ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case19:Engineer_B_State_Z_Attribution_Non-Compliance ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, with varying degrees of attribution specificity." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "partial" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.89" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case19:Intellectual_Integrity_in_Authorship_Invoked_By_Engineer_B_Prior_Employer_Projects ;
proeth:discoveredincase "19" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "19" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B was obligated to limit claims of credit for prior-employer projects to their specific personal contributions and roles on those projects, and to ensure that any such claims were accompanied by clear disclosure of the prior employer's role and Engineer B's specific involvement — an obligation partially met in State Q through a prefatory notice but not met in State Z where project-level attribution was required." ;
proeth:sourcetext "XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of preparing and submitting qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z" ;
proeth:textreferences "State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.",
"That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.",
"With respect to giving credit to proprietary interests as referenced in Professional Obligation III.9, Engineer B's previous projects were not technically proprietary and Engineer B gave credit to both the previous firm and the clients.",
"XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 19 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T15:58:57.773613"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 19 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
19
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
First case
19
Generated
2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
Attributed to
Case 19 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T15:58:57.773613
Generated by
ProEthica Case 19 Extraction