Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports Violated by Engineer A
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#Objective_Completeness_in_Public_Authority_Reports_Violated_by_Engineer_A
Properties
Instance of
ObjectiveCompletenessinPublicAuthorityReports
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ObjectiveCompletenessinPublicAuthorityReports
Applied to
Written environmental assessment report submitted to public authority
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer A's written report submitted to the public authority omits the material finding — reported by the firm's own biologist — that the condominium project could threaten a federally and state-recognized threatened bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands, thereby depriving the public authority of information that is directly pertinent to its regulatory decision on the development proposal
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Interpretation
The threatened species finding is unambiguously material to the public authority's regulatory decision: it bears directly on the environmental impact of the proposed development on an adjacent protected wetlands area and involves a species recognized by both federal and state regulators as warranting protection; its omission from the written report constitutes a failure of objective completeness regardless of the verbal mention to the client
Invoked by
Engineer A Environmental Firm Principal
Tension resolution
The duty of objective completeness to the public regulatory authority supersedes the client's interest in a favorable or minimally adverse written submission; the engineer cannot discharge this duty through verbal-only disclosure to the client
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal
Text references
Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal
one of the engineering firm's biologists reports to Engineer A that in his opinion, the condominium project could threaten a bird species that inhabits the adjacent protected wetlands area
TTL
@prefix case83: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#> .
@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#> .
case83:Objective_Completeness_in_Public_Authority_Reports_Violated_by_Engineer_A a proeth:ObjectiveCompletenessinPublicAuthorityReports,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports Violated by Engineer A" ;
proeth:appliedto "Written environmental assessment report submitted to public authority" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's written report submitted to the public authority omits the material finding — reported by the firm's own biologist — that the condominium project could threaten a federally and state-recognized threatened bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands, thereby depriving the public authority of information that is directly pertinent to its regulatory decision on the development proposal" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "83" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T18:58:06.313476+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "83" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T18:58:06.313476+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The threatened species finding is unambiguously material to the public authority's regulatory decision: it bears directly on the environmental impact of the proposed development on an adjacent protected wetlands area and involves a species recognized by both federal and state regulators as warranting protection; its omission from the written report constitutes a failure of objective completeness regardless of the verbal mention to the client" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Environmental Firm Principal" ;
proeth:principleclass "Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The duty of objective completeness to the public regulatory authority supersedes the client's interest in a favorable or minimally adverse written submission; the engineer cannot discharge this duty through verbal-only disclosure to the client" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal",
"one of the engineering firm's biologists reports to Engineer A that in his opinion, the condominium project could threaten a bird species that inhabits the adjacent protected wetlands area" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 83 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T19:15:08.297663"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 83 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
83
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-27T18:58:06.313476+00:00
First case
83
Generated
2026-02-27T18:58:06.313476+00:00
Attributed to
Case 83 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-27T19:15:08.297663
Generated by
ProEthica Case 83 Extraction