Engineer B Expert Witness Neutrality
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#Engineer_B_Expert_Witness_Neutrality
Definition
Engineer B was obligated to present findings objectively, apply analytical methods consistently, and not omit material evidence contradicting the municipality's litigation position.
Properties
Instance of
ExpertWitnessNeutralityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ExpertWitnessNeutralityObligation
Case context
Engineer B, retained by the municipality in litigation against Engineer A, produced a report relying exclusively on depth-of-penetration analysis while omitting wave equation results showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal and would have met load requirements.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.94
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated to present findings objectively, apply analytical methods consistently, and not omit material evidence contradicting the municipality's litigation position.
Temporal scope
Throughout the investigation and report preparation
Match Confidence
0.0
Matches Existing
false
Synthesis Literal
caseContext
complianceStatus
confidence
obligationClass
obligationStatement
temporalScope
textReferences
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer B Client Defense Bias
obligatedParty
Agent Engineer B
prevailsOver
Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary
derivedFromPrinciple
Engineer B Litigation Neutrality Violation
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.
Engineer B, retained by the municipality in litigation against Engineer A, produced a report that relied exclusively on depth-of-penetration analysis.
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_Expert_Witness_Neutrality a proeth:ExpertWitnessNeutralityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Expert Witness Neutrality" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case71:Engineer_B_Client_Defense_Bias ;
proeth-core:obligatedParty case71:Agent_Engineer_B ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case71:Engineer_B_Faithful_Agent_Boundary ;
proeth:caseContext "Engineer B, retained by the municipality in litigation against Engineer A, produced a report relying exclusively on depth-of-penetration analysis while omitting wave equation results showing the 19 piles had driven to essential refusal and would have met load requirements." ;
proeth:complianceStatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.94" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case71:Engineer_B_Litigation_Neutrality_Violation ;
proeth:obligatedParty "Engineer B" ;
proeth:obligationClass "Expert Witness Neutrality Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationStatement "Engineer B was obligated to present findings objectively, apply analytical methods consistently, and not omit material evidence contradicting the municipality's litigation position." ;
proeth:temporalScope "Throughout the investigation and report preparation" ;
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.",
"Engineer B, retained by the municipality in litigation against Engineer A, produced a report that relied exclusively on depth-of-penetration analysis." ;
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 present findings objectively, apply analytical methods consistently, and not omit material evidence contradicting the municipality's litigation position." ;
skos:definition "Engineer B was obligated to present findings objectively, apply analytical methods consistently, and not omit material evidence contradicting the municipality's litigation position." ;
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