Speculative Finding Exclusion Obligation
Class
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#SpeculativeFindingExclusionObligation
Class Hierarchy
- Thing
- ↳ entity (bfo)
- ↳ continuant (bfo)
- ↳ generically dependent continuant (bfo)
- ↳ information content entity (iao)
- ↳ directive information entity (iao)
- ↳ Obligation (proethica-core)
- ↳ Competence Obligation (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ SpeculativeFindingExclusionObligation
Definition
Duty of an engineer to refrain from including observations or conclusions in a formal written report when those observations are based solely on visual inspection without supporting analysis, when the engineer lacks expertise in the relevant discipline, and when inclusion would constitute speculation rather than a professionally substantiated finding.
Inherited from CompleteTechnicalReportingObligation
Duty of an engineer preparing a technical report to include all relevant and pertinent technical information, including facts that may complicate or contradict the primary conclusions, so that the report supports informed review and interpretation by others.
Case Provenance
Discovered in
This class was discovered during extraction of the case(s) above; the supporting verbatim quotes are in Source Evidence.
Properties
Confidence
0.85
Derived From Principle
Competence Recognition Principle
Enforcement Level
defeasible
Monitoring Criteria
Final report contains only findings supported by competent analysis within the engineer's area of expertise; speculative observations are retained in field notes only.
Nspe Reference
II.2, III.2.a
Obligation Type
competence
Stakeholders Affected
Client
Other engineers
Prime consultant
Public agency
Violation Consequences
Including speculative findings in a formal report may unjustifiably damage the reputations of other professionals and parties, and may constitute a breach of the duty to practice only within areas of competence.
Property Structure
1 · Object and Data Properties
rdfs:domain on this class or ancestor
| Property | Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| competesWith inherited | Obligation | Relates an obligation to another obligation with which it stands in normative tension within a case. Symmetric: if O1 competes with O2 then O2 competes with O1. Does not itself specify which obligation prevails; use prevailsOver for the directed resolution. |
| defeasibleUnder inherited | State | Relates an obligation to a State whose obtaining renders the obligation defeasible, that is, subject to override by a competing obligation with stronger normative support. The State specifies the context in which the obligation yields. |
| derivedFromPrinciple inherited | Principle | 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). |
| establishedBy inherited | CodeProvision | Indicates which code provision establishes this ethical concept. |
| obligatedParty inherited | Agent | Relates an Obligation to the Agent that bears it (the by-whom slot of the Richardson 1990 specification scheme, adopted by Dennis et al. 2016). The duty-bearer of the obligation in the case scenario. |
| prevailsOver inherited | Obligation | Relates an obligation to another obligation that it defeats under the conditions of the case. The prevailing obligation retains its force; the defeated obligation is subordinated to it. Use together with defeasibleUnder to record the State that licenses the resolution. |
| requiresCapability inherited | Capability | Relates an obligation to a capability its discharge presupposes. An obligation can be discharged only by an agent that possesses the required capability, the ought-implies-can principle of deontic logic (Kant's dictum, whose computational analogue Stenseke 2024 develops as moral tractability); in this framework an agent that lacks the required capability leaves the obligation subject to override, recorded via defeasibleUnder. |
2 · Definitional Attributes
SHACL definitional shape
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| obligation type | obligationType | The controlled NSPE obligation category, which drives the subClassOf core:Obligation typing: disclosure, safety, competence, confidentiality, reporting, collegial, attribution, legal, ethical. |
3 · Bearer Attributes
SHACL property shape
individual data
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| obligation statement | obligationStatement | The concrete duty the obligation states (the operative 'shall' clause). |
| derived from principle | derivedFromPrinciple | The principle the obligation derives from, via the O->P derivedFromPrinciple edge (the P side of R->P->O). Range: Principle. |
| obligated party | obligatedParty | The agent who bears the obligation, via the obligatedParty edge. Range: Agent. |
| temporal scope | temporalScope | When the obligation is in force (the period or condition of applicability). |
| compliance status | complianceStatus | Whether the obligation was met in the case: met, unmet, partial, or unclear. |
4 · Referenced By
rdfs:range on this class or ancestor
| From | Property | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Action | fulfillsObligation inherited | Relates an action to obligations it fulfills. The action realizes the directive content of the obligation. |
| Action | raisesObligation inherited | Relates an action to an obligation it puts at stake without itself resolving it. The fulfillment or breach occurs at a downstream action in the same chain. This third predicate distinguishes an upstream choice that engages an obligation from the downstream action that satisfies or breaches it; without it the same obligation appears as both fulfilled and violated across adjacent steps. |
| Action | violatesObligation inherited | Relates an action to an obligation it breaches. The action fails to realize the directive content of the obligation, the negative counterpart of fulfillsObligation. |
| Code Provision | establishes inherited | Relates a code provision to the ethical concepts (principles, obligations, constraints) it establishes or defines. |
| Obligation | competesWith inherited | Relates an obligation to another obligation with which it stands in normative tension within a case. Symmetric: if O1 competes with O2 then O2 competes with O1. Does not itself specify which obligation prevails; use prevailsOver for the directed resolution. |
| Obligation | prevailsOver inherited | Relates an obligation to another obligation that it defeats under the conditions of the case. The prevailing obligation retains its force; the defeated obligation is subordinated to it. Use together with defeasibleUnder to record the State that licenses the resolution. |
| Role | hasObligation inherited | Relates a role to an obligation borne in that standing. The Role-wide domain enables the edge for any role without committing existence; obligation-generation is axiomatized on proeth:ProfessionalRole (subClassOf hasObligation some Obligation) in the intermediate layer, and a participant role may bear case-asserted obligations without profession-generated ones. |
| State | activatesObligation inherited | Relates a State to an Obligation that the obtaining of the State makes applicable. This is the forward, activating complement of defeasibleUnder (which records the State under which an obligation yields): a state such as hazard exposure or an undertaken commitment can bring an obligation into force for the role-bearers it concerns. |
Source Evidence
Text references
Under the circumstances, the Board concluded that it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.
While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
Source text
While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
Used in cases 1
Case ontologies that instantiate this class or one of its base-ontology descendants. Computed from each individual's type, so the list stays current as cases are extracted. The originating case is shown under Extraction details.
Case 86@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:SpeculativeFindingExclusionObligation a owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "Speculative Finding Exclusion Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple "Competence Recognition Principle" ;
proeth:enforcementLevel "defeasible" ;
proeth:monitoringCriteria "Final report contains only findings supported by competent analysis within the engineer's area of expertise; speculative observations are retained in field notes only." ;
proeth:nspeReference "II.2, III.2.a" ;
proeth:obligationType "competence" ;
proeth:stakeholdersAffected "Client",
"Other engineers",
"Prime consultant",
"Public agency" ;
proeth:textReferences "Under the circumstances, the Board concluded that it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.",
"While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation." ;
proeth:violationConsequences "Including speculative findings in a formal report may unjustifiably damage the reputations of other professionals and parties, and may constitute a breach of the duty to practice only within areas of competence." ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 86 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "discussion" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 86 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.72 ;
proeth-prov:matchReasoning "This is a partial inverse of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation: where that class requires inclusion of all relevant findings, this class addresses the competing duty to exclude findings that are not professionally substantiated. It is a variant that qualifies the completeness duty by competence limits, warranting a medium-confidence match to the parent concept rather than a new independent class, but the specific exclusion framing is not captured by any existing class." ;
proeth-prov:matchedOntologyClass proeth:CompleteTechnicalReportingObligation ;
proeth-prov:matchedOntologyLabel "Complete Technical Reporting Obligation" ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting true ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation." ;
rdfs:comment "Duty of an engineer to refrain from including observations or conclusions in a formal written report when those observations are based solely on visual inspection without supporting analysis, when the engineer lacks expertise in the relevant discipline, and when inclusion would constitute speculation rather than a professionally substantiated finding." ;
rdfs:subClassOf proeth:CompetenceObligation ;
skos:definition "Duty of an engineer to refrain from including observations or conclusions in a formal written report when those observations are based solely on visual inspection without supporting analysis, when the engineer lacks expertise in the relevant discipline, and when inclusion would constitute speculation rather than a professionally substantiated finding." ;
skos:scopeNote "[CompleteTechnicalReportingObligation] Duty of an engineer preparing a technical report to include all relevant and pertinent technical information, including facts that may complicate or contradict the primary conclusions, so that the report supports informed review and interpretation by others." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 86 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:ObligationDefinitionShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Obligation definition schema (type-level, descriptive, field contract)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What individuates an obligation TYPE: its controlled NSPE category, which drives the subClassOf core:Obligation typing. The concrete duty statement and the temporal-scope/compliance-status literals are per-individual, as are the derivedFromPrinciple and obligatedParty edges; all are declared on ObligationPropertyShape, mirroring the Role/Principle Definition/Property split. Descriptive only (no validation result); obligation_type is a routing input, not stored as a literal."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "The controlled NSPE obligation category, which drives the subClassOf core:Obligation typing: disclosure, safety, competence, confidentiality, reporting, collegial, attribution, legal, ethical." ;
sh:name "obligation type" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:obligationType ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Obligation .
pcsh:ObligationPropertyShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Obligation per-case schema (individual data, non-definitional)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What a given obligation INDIVIDUAL is described by in a specific case: the concrete duty it states, the principle it derives from and the party who bears it (both edges), and its temporal scope and compliance status. These do NOT individuate the obligation TYPE (that is ObligationDefinitionShape); their values are per-case, asserted on the individual. Descriptive only."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "The concrete duty the obligation states (the operative 'shall' clause)." ;
sh:name "obligation statement" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:obligationStatement ],
[ sh:description "The principle the obligation derives from, via the O->P derivedFromPrinciple edge (the P side of R->P->O). Range: Principle." ;
sh:name "derived from principle" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path core:derivedFromPrinciple ],
[ sh:description "The agent who bears the obligation, via the obligatedParty edge. Range: Agent." ;
sh:name "obligated party" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path core:obligatedParty ],
[ sh:description "When the obligation is in force (the period or condition of applicability)." ;
sh:name "temporal scope" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:temporalScope ],
[ sh:description "Whether the obligation was met in the case: met, unmet, partial, or unclear." ;
sh:name "compliance status" ;
sh:order 5 ;
sh:path proeth:complianceStatus ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Obligation .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
86
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
First case
86
Match Confidence
0.72
Match Reasoning
This is a partial inverse of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation: where that class requires inclusion of all relevant findings, this class addresses the competing duty to exclude findings that are not professionally substantiated. It is a variant that qualifies the completeness duty by competence limits, warranting a medium-confidence match to the parent concept rather than a new independent class, but the specific exclusion framing is not captured by any existing class.
Matched Ontology Label
Complete Technical Reporting Obligation
Matches Existing
true
Generated
2026-06-04T17:34:19.889581+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 86 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']