Engineer B Scope Limitation Non-Disclosure
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#Engineer_B_Scope_Limitation_Non-Disclosure
Definition
Engineer B's report omitted disclosure that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, that pile driving records were not reviewed, and that wave equation analysis of the driving records would have indicated the 19 piles met strength requirements by a substantial margin.
Properties
Instance of
ScopeLimitationDisclosurePrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ScopeLimitationDisclosurePrinciple
Applied to
Concluding report on test pile driving results
Balancing with
Municipality Client's litigation interest in an unqualified adverse finding against Engineer A
Concrete expression
Engineer B's report omitted disclosure that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, that pile driving records were not reviewed, and that wave equation analysis of the driving records would have indicated the 19 piles met strength requirements by a substantial margin.
Confidence
0.93
Interpretation
The principle was violated: Engineer B's report presented conclusions about pile adequacy without disclosing the equipment failure, the methodological deviations, or the existence of contradictory evidence in the driving records.
Tension resolution
The retaining party's litigation interest does not justify omitting material limitations and contradictory evidence from a professional engineering report.
Match Confidence
0.0
Matches Existing
false
Synthesis Literal
appliedTo
balancingWith
concreteExpression
confidence
interpretation
principleClass
tensionResolution
textReferences
Relationships
invokedBy
Agent Engineer B
Source Evidence
Text references
Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
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. Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
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_Scope_Limitation_Non-Disclosure a proeth:ScopeLimitationDisclosurePrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Scope Limitation Non-Disclosure" ;
proeth-core:invokedBy case71:Agent_Engineer_B ;
proeth:appliedTo "Concluding report on test pile driving results" ;
proeth:balancingWith "Municipality Client's litigation interest in an unqualified adverse finding against Engineer A" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteExpression "Engineer B's report omitted disclosure that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, that pile driving records were not reviewed, and that wave equation analysis of the driving records would have indicated the 19 piles met strength requirements by a substantial margin." ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:interpretation "The principle was violated: Engineer B's report presented conclusions about pile adequacy without disclosing the equipment failure, the methodological deviations, or the existence of contradictory evidence in the driving records." ;
proeth:invokedBy "Engineer B Litigation Expert" ;
proeth:principleClass "Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle" ;
proeth:tensionResolution "The retaining party's litigation interest does not justify omitting material limitations and contradictory evidence from a professional engineering report." ;
proeth:textReferences "Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.",
"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 "2026-06-04T14:30:07.628947+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. Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed." ;
proeth-prov:synthesisLiteral "appliedTo",
"balancingWith",
"concreteExpression",
"confidence",
"interpretation",
"principleClass",
"tensionResolution",
"textReferences" ;
rdfs:comment "Engineer B's report omitted disclosure that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, that pile driving records were not reviewed, and that wave equation analysis of the driving records would have indicated the 19 piles met strength requirements by a substantial margin." ;
skos:definition "Engineer B's report omitted disclosure that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, that pile driving records were not reviewed, and that wave equation analysis of the driving records would have indicated the 19 piles met strength requirements by a substantial margin." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-04T14:30:07.628947+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
2026-06-04T14:30:07.628947+00:00
First case
71
Generated
2026-06-04T14:30:07.628947+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 71 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']
Generated by
ProEthica Case 71 Extraction