Engineer B Project-Level Attribution State Z Proposal
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/19#Engineer_B_Project-Level_Attribution_State_Z_Proposal
Properties
Instance of
Project-LevelAttributioninQualificationProposalsObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Project-LevelAttributioninQualificationProposalsObligation
Case context
Engineer B included prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal without naming the prior firm or describing Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing, in violation of State Z's specific attribution rules.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated, under State Z's specific licensing board rules, to include next to each specific prior-employer project listing the name of the previous firm and a clear description of Engineer B's specific role on that project — an obligation that was not met in the State Z qualification proposal.
Temporal scope
At the time of preparing and submitting the State Z qualification proposal
Relationships
prevailsOver
Honesty in Professional Representations Obligation XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals Both States
derivedFromPrinciple
Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Applied to Engineer B State Z
Source Evidence
Source text
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.
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.
The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the 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_Project-Level_Attribution_State_Z_Proposal a proeth:Project-LevelAttributioninQualificationProposalsObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Project-Level Attribution State Z Proposal" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case19:Engineer_B_Prior_Employer_Credit_Scope_Limitation_State_Q_State_Z ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case19:Honesty_in_Professional_Representations_Obligation_XYZ_Engineers_Qualification_Proposals_Both_States ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer B included prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal without naming the prior firm or describing Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing, in violation of State Z's specific attribution rules." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case19:Qualification_Proposal_Attribution_Integrity_Applied_to_Engineer_B_State_Z ;
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 "Project-Level Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B was obligated, under State Z's specific licensing board rules, to include next to each specific prior-employer project listing the name of the previous firm and a clear description of Engineer B's specific role on that project — an obligation that was not met in the State Z qualification proposal." ;
proeth:sourcetext "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." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of preparing and submitting the State Z qualification proposal" ;
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.",
"The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 19 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T15:58:57.772560"^^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
2026-02-25T15:58:57.772560
Generated by
ProEthica Case 19 Extraction