DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/60#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
Should Engineer A refrain from using the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential in the State M expert report signature, given that Engineer A holds no State M PE license?
Focus
Having accepted the engagement, Engineer A must decide how to sign the expert report. Engineer A holds the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential, which incorporates engineering terminology and requires the holder to be a licensed PE. Engineer A does not hold a State M PE license. Engineer A must choose whether to use that credential in the report signature block, use a neutral consultant designation, or disclose the jurisdictional licensure limitation alongside the credential.
Option1
Engineer A signs the report solely as 'Consultant A' or uses a non-engineering credential designation, avoiding any title that incorporates engineering terminology and thereby avoiding triggering State M's licensure statute.
Option2
Engineer A signs as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing the absence of a State M PE license, as was done in the case, on the theory that the non-engineering framing of the engagement makes the credential merely descriptive.
Option3
Engineer A uses the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential but adds an explicit notation that Engineer A is not licensed as a PE in State M and is providing services solely as a non-engineering consultant.
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case60: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/60#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case60:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A refrain from using the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential in the State M expert report signature, given that Engineer A holds no State M PE license?" ;
proeth:focus "Having accepted the engagement, Engineer A must decide how to sign the expert report. Engineer A holds the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential, which incorporates engineering terminology and requires the holder to be a licensed PE. Engineer A does not hold a State M PE license. Engineer A must choose whether to use that credential in the report signature block, use a neutral consultant designation, or disclose the jurisdictional licensure limitation alongside the credential." ;
proeth:option1 "Engineer A signs the report solely as 'Consultant A' or uses a non-engineering credential designation, avoiding any title that incorporates engineering terminology and thereby avoiding triggering State M's licensure statute." ;
proeth:option2 "Engineer A signs as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing the absence of a State M PE license, as was done in the case, on the theory that the non-engineering framing of the engagement makes the credential merely descriptive." ;
proeth:option3 "Engineer A uses the Forensic Engineering diplomate credential but adds an explicit notation that Engineer A is not licensed as a PE in State M and is providing services solely as a non-engineering consultant." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-05-27T20:10:55.077826"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 60 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-05-27T20:10:55.077826
Attributed to
claude-sonnet-4-6
Generated by
ProEthica Case 60 Extraction