Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Applied to Engineer B State Z
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/19#Qualification_Proposal_Attribution_Integrity_Applied_to_Engineer_B_State_Z
Properties
Instance of
QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
Applied to
State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
State Z qualification proposals
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Honesty in Professional Representations
Concrete expression
Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z proposals without naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role adjacent to each project listing violated State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct by both Engineer B individually and XYZ Engineers as a firm
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Interpretation
Attribution integrity in qualification proposals requires not merely a general prefatory disclaimer but specific, proximate attribution adjacent to each project description, as required by State Z's rules
Invoked by
Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
XYZ Engineers Competing Firm
Tension resolution
State Z's specific rules resolved the question by requiring proximate attribution; Engineer B's general qualifier was insufficient to satisfy the attribution integrity obligation in that jurisdiction
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
Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities
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 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:Qualification_Proposal_Attribution_Integrity_Applied_to_Engineer_B_State_Z a proeth:QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Applied to Engineer B State Z" ;
proeth:appliedto "State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority",
"State Z qualification proposals" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Honesty in Professional Representations" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z proposals without naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role adjacent to each project listing violated State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct by both Engineer B individually and XYZ Engineers as a firm" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "19" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "19" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Attribution integrity in qualification proposals requires not merely a general prefatory disclaimer but specific, proximate attribution adjacent to each project description, as required by State Z's rules" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer",
"XYZ Engineers Competing Firm" ;
proeth:principleclass "Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity" ;
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:tensionresolution "State Z's specific rules resolved the question by requiring proximate attribution; Engineer B's general qualifier was insufficient to satisfy the attribution integrity obligation in that jurisdiction" ;
proeth:textreferences "Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities",
"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 "2026-02-25T15:58:57.770931"^^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
2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
First case
19
Generated
2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
Attributed to
Case 19 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T15:58:57.770931
Generated by
ProEthica Case 19 Extraction