Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Invoked By Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/19#Qualification_Proposal_Attribution_Integrity_Invoked_By_Engineer_B_XYZ_Engineers_State_Z
Properties
Instance of
QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
Applied to
XYZ Engineers qualification proposals submitted in State Z
Balancing with
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers failed to include, next to each specific prior-employer project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement, as required by State Z's more specific licensing rules, by relying instead on a general prefatory notice
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Interpretation
State Z's unique legislative history produces a more specific rule that requires project-level attribution adjacent to each listing; a general prefatory notice does not satisfy this requirement, making the proposals potentially non-compliant regardless of the intent to provide transparency
Invoked by
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
Tension resolution
State Z's specific rule leaves little interpretive room; project-level attribution is required and a prefatory notice is insufficient
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer', and that 'any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project'.
Text references
a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
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_Invoked_By_Engineer_B_XYZ_Engineers_State_Z a proeth:QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Invoked By Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z" ;
proeth:appliedto "XYZ Engineers qualification proposals submitted in State Z" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer B and XYZ Engineers failed to include, next to each specific prior-employer project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement, as required by State Z's more specific licensing rules, by relying instead on a general prefatory notice" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "19" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "19" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "State Z's unique legislative history produces a more specific rule that requires project-level attribution adjacent to each listing; a general prefatory notice does not satisfy this requirement, making the proposals potentially non-compliant regardless of the intent to provide transparency" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer",
"Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer', and that 'any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project'." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "State Z's specific rule leaves little interpretive room; project-level attribution is required and a prefatory notice is insufficient" ;
proeth:textreferences "a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer",
"any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project",
"this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 19 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T15:58:57.762980"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 19 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
19
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
First case
19
Generated
2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
Attributed to
Case 19 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T15:58:57.762980
Generated by
ProEthica Case 19 Extraction