Engineer B Contradictory Evidence Disclosure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#Engineer_B_Contradictory_Evidence_Disclosure
Definition
Engineer B was obligated to acknowledge in the report the wave equation analysis showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal and would have met load requirements, as this evidence materially contradicted the report's conclusions.
Properties
Instance of
ContradictoryEvidenceDisclosureObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ContradictoryEvidenceDisclosureObligation
Case context
Engineer B's report concluded that 19 piles were inadequate based on depth-of-penetration analysis, without acknowledging that wave equation calculations applied to the pile driving records would have shown those same piles meeting load requirements by a substantial margin.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.9
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated to acknowledge in the report the wave equation analysis showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal and would have met load requirements, as this evidence materially contradicted the report's conclusions.
Temporal scope
At the time of preparing and issuing the findings report
Match Confidence
0.0
Matches Existing
false
Synthesis Literal
caseContext
complianceStatus
confidence
obligationClass
obligationStatement
temporalScope
textReferences
Relationships
obligatedParty
Agent Engineer B
derivedFromPrinciple
Engineer B Intellectual Honesty in Expert Report
Source Evidence
Text references
Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
Source text
Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
TTL
@prefix case71: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#> .
@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 proeth-prov: <http://proethica.org/provenance#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case71:Engineer_B_Contradictory_Evidence_Disclosure a proeth:ContradictoryEvidenceDisclosureObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Contradictory Evidence Disclosure" ;
proeth-core:obligatedParty case71:Agent_Engineer_B ;
proeth:caseContext "Engineer B's report concluded that 19 piles were inadequate based on depth-of-penetration analysis, without acknowledging that wave equation calculations applied to the pile driving records would have shown those same piles meeting load requirements by a substantial margin." ;
proeth:complianceStatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case71:Engineer_B_Intellectual_Honesty_in_Expert_Report ;
proeth:obligatedParty "Engineer B" ;
proeth:obligationClass "Contradictory Evidence Disclosure Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationStatement "Engineer B was obligated to acknowledge in the report the wave equation analysis showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal and would have met load requirements, as this evidence materially contradicted the report's conclusions." ;
proeth:temporalScope "At the time of preparing and issuing the findings report" ;
proeth:textReferences "Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements." ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 71 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "facts" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-04T14:31:15.630641+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 71 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.0 ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting false ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements." ;
proeth-prov:synthesisLiteral "caseContext",
"complianceStatus",
"confidence",
"obligationClass",
"obligationStatement",
"temporalScope",
"textReferences" ;
rdfs:comment "Engineer B was obligated to acknowledge in the report the wave equation analysis showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal and would have met load requirements, as this evidence materially contradicted the report's conclusions." ;
skos:definition "Engineer B was obligated to acknowledge in the report the wave equation analysis showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal and would have met load requirements, as this evidence materially contradicted the report's conclusions." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-04T14:31:15.630641+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 71 Extraction",
"claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 71 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
71
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-06-04T14:31:15.630641+00:00
First case
71
Generated
2026-06-04T14:31:15.630641+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 71 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']
Generated by
ProEthica Case 71 Extraction