Complete Reporting Principle
Class
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CompleteReportingPrinciple
Class Hierarchy
- Thing
- ↳ entity (bfo)
- ↳ continuant (bfo)
- ↳ generically dependent continuant (bfo)
- ↳ information content entity (iao)
- ↳ directive information entity (iao)
- ↳ Principle (proethica-core)
- ↳ Professional Virtue Principle (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ CompleteReportingPrinciple
Definition
Professional principle requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent technical information in reports, statements, and testimony, without selective omission of facts that could alter the interpretation of findings or deny other parties the opportunity for expert review.
Case Provenance
Discovered in
- Case 71: Failure To Include Information In Engineering Report first
- Case 76: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare—Drinking Water Quality
This class was discovered during extraction of the case(s) above; the supporting verbatim quotes are in Source Evidence.
Properties
Abstract Nature
Open-textured obligation requiring judgment about what counts as relevant and pertinent, and how completeness is balanced against scope, but admitting no exception for adversarial convenience.
Confidence
0.95
Derived Obligations
Disclose equipment failures that affected test results
Enable independent expert interpretation by providing complete records
Include all material test data in reports
Present facts that may favor the opposing party
Extensional Examples
NSPE Code requirement that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony
Operationalization
Requires engineers to include material facts even when those facts complicate or contradict the preferred conclusion, to disclose equipment failures and anomalous conditions, and to present data that enables independent expert review.
Potential Conflicts
Client Advocacy
Litigation Neutrality Principle
Principle Category
professional_virtue
Value Basis
Technical reports derive their professional authority from comprehensiveness; selective reporting corrupts the epistemic function of engineering documentation and undermines trust in the profession.
Property Structure
1 · Object and Data Properties
rdfs:domain on this class or ancestor
| Property | Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| establishedBy inherited | CodeProvision | Indicates which code provision establishes this ethical concept. |
| invokedBy inherited | Agent | Relates a Principle to the Agent(s) that invoke it in the case scenario (the parties who appeal to the principle to justify or evaluate conduct). May name several agents. |
2 · Definitional Attributes
SHACL definitional shape
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| principle kind | principleCategory | The controlled principle kind, which drives the four-kind subClassOf typing: FundamentalEthicalPrinciple, ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple, RelationalPrinciple, DomainSpecificPrinciple. The canonical leaf label becomes the rdf:type; the category is a routing input, not stored as a literal. |
| extensional cases | extensionalCases | Class-level prior cases that instantiate the principle (McLaren extensional grounding); an optional class-mint field. |
3 · Bearer Attributes
SHACL property shape
individual data
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| interpretation | interpretation | Per-case reading of what the principle requires in this situation (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| concrete expression | concreteExpression | How the principle is concretely expressed in the case (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| applied to | appliedTo | What the principle is applied to in the case (the situation or party it bears on). |
| balancing with | balancingWith | The competing principle or value this principle is balanced against in the case, recorded as a literal; extraction records the tension but asserts no defeat or precedence, and the defeasibility edges are materialized by a separate pass from this field. |
| tension resolution | tensionResolution | How the case resolves the tension involving this principle (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| invoked by | invokedBy | The agent who invokes the principle, via the P->Agent invokedBy edge (resolved to a case Agent by embedding shortlist + LLM select; a Board-pattern invoking party resolves deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board of Ethical Review Agent). Range: Agent. |
4 · Referenced By
rdfs:range on this class or ancestor
| From | Property | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Action | guidedByPrinciple inherited | Relates an action to a principle that directs it. The principle supplies the value the action is taken to serve. |
| Code Provision | establishes inherited | Relates a code provision to the ethical concepts (principles, obligations, constraints) it establishes or defines. |
| Obligation | derivedFromPrinciple inherited | Relates an obligation to the principle or principles it operationalizes. The obligation gives concrete directive force to the more abstract value the principle expresses (Dennis et al. 2016). |
| Role | adheresToPrinciple inherited | Relates a role to principles that guide its conduct; the role-relative applicability edge of the R->P->O chain (the role determines which principles apply to conduct in that standing). |
Source Evidence
Text references
the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'
the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
Source text
the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
Used in cases 3
@prefix core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix pcsh: <http://proethica.org/shapes/core#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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 sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
proeth:CompleteReportingPrinciple a owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "Complete Reporting Principle" ;
proeth:abstractNature "Open-textured obligation requiring judgment about what counts as relevant and pertinent, and how completeness is balanced against scope, but admitting no exception for adversarial convenience." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedObligations "Disclose equipment failures that affected test results",
"Enable independent expert interpretation by providing complete records",
"Include all material test data in reports",
"Present facts that may favor the opposing party" ;
proeth:extensionalExamples "NSPE Code requirement that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony" ;
proeth:operationalization "Requires engineers to include material facts even when those facts complicate or contradict the preferred conclusion, to disclose equipment failures and anomalous conditions, and to present data that enables independent expert review." ;
proeth:potentialConflicts "Client Advocacy",
"Litigation Neutrality Principle" ;
proeth:principleCategory "professional_virtue" ;
proeth:textReferences "the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'",
"the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.",
"the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report." ;
proeth:valueBasis "Technical reports derive their professional authority from comprehensiveness; selective reporting corrupts the epistemic function of engineering documentation and undermines trust in the profession." ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 71,
76 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "discussion" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-04T14:34:00.918915+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 71 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.92 ;
proeth-prov:matchReasoning "The existing Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle addresses disclosure of limitations on investigation scope. This principle is distinct: it governs the completeness of reporting once facts are in hand, requiring inclusion of all pertinent data rather than merely disclosing what was not examined. The Investigative Completeness Principle governs evidence-gathering diligence. Neither captures the affirmative duty to include all relevant technical facts in the report itself, which is the core concern here." ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting false ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report." ;
rdfs:comment "Professional principle requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent technical information in reports, statements, and testimony, without selective omission of facts that could alter the interpretation of findings or deny other parties the opportunity for expert review." ;
rdfs:subClassOf proeth:ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple ;
skos:definition "Professional principle requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent technical information in reports, statements, and testimony, without selective omission of facts that could alter the interpretation of findings or deny other parties the opportunity for expert review." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-04T14:34:00.918915+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 71 Extraction",
"claude-sonnet-4-6" .
pcsh:CaseAnnotationShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Shared per-case annotation schema (all nine components)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "The cross-component annotation fields on committed case individuals: proeth:confidence (extraction confidence, decimal; all components except Action, whose Step-3 contract carries no confidence field), proeth:textReferences (verbatim supporting quotes, universal), proeth-prov sourceText (the source snippet, on the Step-1/2 provenance layers; Step-3 A/E individuals ground via textReferences only), and the involvement gloss (proeth:caseInvolvement on role individuals, proeth:caseContext on obligation, capability, and constraint individuals). Values are per-individual; the fields do not individuate any type."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "Extraction confidence for this individual (0 to 1)." ;
sh:name "confidence" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:confidence ],
[ sh:description "Verbatim case quotes supporting this individual." ;
sh:name "text references" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:textReferences ],
[ sh:description "How this individual figures in the case narrative (role individuals; the same text is routed into rdfs:comment)." ;
sh:name "case involvement" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path proeth:caseInvolvement ],
[ sh:description "Grounding context in this case (obligation, capability, and constraint individuals)." ;
sh:name "case context" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:caseContext ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Action,
core:Capability,
core:Constraint,
core:Event,
core:Obligation,
core:Principle,
core:Resource,
core:Role,
core:State .
pcsh:PrincipleDefinitionShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Principle definition schema (type-level, descriptive, field contract)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What individuates a principle TYPE: its canonical kind (drives the four-kind subClassOf typing; the canonical leaf becomes the rdf:type) and the extensional cases that ground it (McLaren). The five per-case narrative literals and the invokedBy edge are per-individual and now declared on PrinciplePropertyShape, mirroring the RoleDefinitionShape/ProfessionalRolePropertyShape split so the {{ principle_schema }} prompt separates the type judgment from what the case supplies. Descriptive only (no validation result); principle_category is a routing input, not stored as a literal."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "The controlled principle kind, which drives the four-kind subClassOf typing: FundamentalEthicalPrinciple, ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple, RelationalPrinciple, DomainSpecificPrinciple. The canonical leaf label becomes the rdf:type; the category is a routing input, not stored as a literal." ;
sh:name "principle kind" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:principleCategory ],
[ sh:description "Class-level prior cases that instantiate the principle (McLaren extensional grounding); an optional class-mint field." ;
sh:name "extensional cases" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:extensionalCases ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Principle .
pcsh:PrinciplePropertyShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Principle per-case schema (individual data, non-definitional)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What a principle INDIVIDUAL is described by in a specific case: the five narrative literals the defeasibility pipeline consumes and the agent that invokes it. These do NOT individuate the principle TYPE (that is PrincipleDefinitionShape); their values are per-case, asserted on the individual. Descriptive only."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "Per-case reading of what the principle requires in this situation (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "interpretation" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:interpretation ],
[ sh:description "How the principle is concretely expressed in the case (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "concrete expression" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:concreteExpression ],
[ sh:description "What the principle is applied to in the case (the situation or party it bears on)." ;
sh:name "applied to" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path proeth:appliedTo ],
[ sh:description "The competing principle or value this principle is balanced against in the case, recorded as a literal; extraction records the tension but asserts no defeat or precedence, and the defeasibility edges are materialized by a separate pass from this field." ;
sh:name "balancing with" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:balancingWith ],
[ sh:description "How the case resolves the tension involving this principle (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "tension resolution" ;
sh:order 5 ;
sh:path proeth:tensionResolution ],
[ sh:description "The agent who invokes the principle, via the P->Agent invokedBy edge (resolved to a case Agent by embedding shortlist + LLM select; a Board-pattern invoking party resolves deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board of Ethical Review Agent). Range: Agent." ;
sh:name "invoked by" ;
sh:order 6 ;
sh:path core:invokedBy ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Principle .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
['71', '76']
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-06-04T14:34:00.918915+00:00
First case
71
Match Confidence
0.92
Match Reasoning
The existing Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle addresses disclosure of limitations on investigation scope. This principle is distinct: it governs the completeness of reporting once facts are in hand, requiring inclusion of all pertinent data rather than merely disclosing what was not examined. The Investigative Completeness Principle governs evidence-gathering diligence. Neither captures the affirmative duty to include all relevant technical facts in the report itself, which is the core concern here.
Matches Existing
false
Generated
2026-06-04T14:34:00.918915+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 71 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']