ProEthica Case 103 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-07-05T07:54:16.187926
title: Conflict of Interest - Part-Time Service as City Engineer
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

CausalLink_Advisory Recommendation
type: CausalNormativeLink
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Advisory Recommendation
comment: A2 fulfills the Duty to Avoid Prejudicing Advice even though it is caused by Part-Time Retention Acceptance and itself feeds into Self-Interest Risk Arising, showing that the engineer's guidance by Undivided Loyalty was still channeled into advice that met the rule's requirement despite the conflicted position created by his dual capacity as both retained advisor and commissioned project engineer.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

CausalLink_Client Service Framing
type: CausalNormativeLink
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Client Service Framing
comment: Framing the arrangement as ordinary client service carries no explicit obligation or downstream causal effect in the record, so its normative significance is limited to shaping how the dual relationship is perceived rather than to any concrete duty being met or breached.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

CausalLink_Independent Review Waiver
type: CausalNormativeLink
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Independent Review Waiver
comment: Waiving independent review, jointly attributable to the city and the engineer, converts the previously abstract self-interest risk into the concrete outcome of the engineer approving his own plan, so even without a recorded violation label this action represents the practical realization of the conflict that undivided loyalty was meant to prevent.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

CausalLink_Own Plan Approval
type: CausalNormativeLink
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Own Plan Approval
comment: A1 is guided solely by Undivided Loyalty rather than fulfilling any stated duty, which is significant because it arises from the Independent Review Waiver and directly constitutes the engineer approving his own plan, the very self-dealing arrangement that produced the Self-Interest Risk downstream, so the absence of a fulfilled obligation here underscores that loyalty alone could not legitimize a role with no independent check.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

CausalLink_Part-Time Retention Acceptance
type: CausalNormativeLink
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
comment: Accepting the part-time retention, while guided by the duty of undivided loyalty, matters because it puts the engineer in a position to produce advisory recommendations that later feed directly into the self-interest risk that the loyalty norm is meant to prevent.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

CausalLink_Project Commission Acceptance
type: CausalNormativeLink
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Project Commission Acceptance
comment: Accepting the project commission is the pivotal act guided by undivided loyalty because it directly gives rise to dual capacity and, through that, to the very self-interest risk that the loyalty obligation exists to guard against, making this action the crux of the ethical tension.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

CausalLink_Project Commission Retention
type: CausalNormativeLink
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Project Commission Retention
comment: The city council's retention of the engineer for the project, which causes fee compensation, is normatively inert for the engineer himself since responsibility for this causal link rests with the council, yet it is the financial engine that makes the conflicted dual role economically attractive.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This precedent case addressed dual compensation from interested parties for the same service

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This precedent case addressed dual compensation from interested parties for the same service

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Receiving compensation from multiple interested parties for the same project could bias his advice.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Faithful service requires disclosing and consenting to any dual compensation from interested parties.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Prohibits accepting compensation from multiple interested parties for the same service which directly creates the loyalty division constraint

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This role must not accept compensation from multiple interested parties for the same service without consent

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Accepting compensation from both roles without consent threatens objective judgment

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Reviewing his own plans as city engineer involves compensation from multiple interested parties for related work

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This role must not accept dual compensation for the same project work without consent of all parties

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: The Board explicitly applies Canon 15 to justify that only one interested party exists and consent is given.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Canon 15 governs conflicts when serving multiple interested parties as in dual capacity roles

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Canon 15 restricts accepting compensation from more than one interested party without consent

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Approving his own plans as city engineer while being paid as the designer represents compensation conflict for the same service

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This addresses accepting compensation from multiple interested parties for related services without consent

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Accepting compensation for design work while serving as city engineer creates dual compensation without consent of all parties

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Retaining the commission for the same project involves compensation from multiple interested parties without consent

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This relates to receiving compensation from another party that could conflict with prior service

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This precedent case involved use of a salaried position potentially competing unfairly with other engineers

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This precedent case involved use of a salaried position potentially competing unfairly with other engineers

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Using the salaried city position to gain unfair advantage would compromise objective advice.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Approving plans or projects for personal advantage would misuse the salaried city role.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: The salaried city position could unfairly advantage his private design work over other engineers

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Prevents using a salaried position advantage in ways that could conflict with client loyalty obligations

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This role must not use the salaried city position to unfairly compete with other engineers

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Using the salaried city position to approve his own private work creates unfair competitive advantage

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This role must not leverage the city engineer position to gain unfair advantage in securing design work

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This addresses using a salaried city position to gain unfair advantage over other engineers

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Using the salaried city engineer position to gain private design work unfairly competes with other engineers

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Leveraging the city engineer role to secure the private commission unfairly disadvantages other engineers

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This relates to leveraging the city position to secure future private commissions unfairly

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Canon 27 prohibits using a salaried position advantage to unfairly compete which is a self-interest risk

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_1

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_102

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_201

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_301

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_302

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_402

Analysis-record edge (alignsWithConclusion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=alignsWithConclusion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_1

Analysis-record edge (decidesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=decidesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_1

Analysis-record edge (involvesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=involvesConstraint; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: City Engineer Loyalty Division Prohibition

Analysis-record edge (involvesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=involvesObligation; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_101

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_103

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_202

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_303

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_403

Analysis-record edge (alignsWithConclusion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=alignsWithConclusion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_101

Analysis-record edge (decidesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=decidesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_101

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_102

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_401

Analysis-record edge (alignsWithConclusion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=alignsWithConclusion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_102

Analysis-record edge (decidesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=decidesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_102

Analysis-record edge (involvesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=involvesObligation; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_104

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_402

Analysis-record edge (alignsWithConclusion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=alignsWithConclusion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_103

Analysis-record edge (decidesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=decidesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_104

Analysis-record edge (involvesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=involvesObligation; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty

Analysis-record edge (addressesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=addressesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_203

Analysis-record edge (alignsWithConclusion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=alignsWithConclusion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_303

Analysis-record edge (decidesQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=decidesQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_203

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_302

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_303

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_401

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_402

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_403

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_1

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_101

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_102

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_103

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_104

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_201

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_202

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_203

Analysis-record edge (explainsQuestion)
type: Derivation
comment: property=explainsQuestion; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Question_301

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_206

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_207

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_208

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_209

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_301

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_302

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_303

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_1

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_101

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_102

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_103

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_201

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_202

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_203

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_204

Analysis-record edge (describesResolutionOf)
type: Derivation
comment: property=describesResolutionOf; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: case-103#Conclusion_205

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: The engineer must advise the client if the project or arrangement will not succeed or is improper

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Advising clients on project viability relates directly to the engineer's advisory competence

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Rule 13 is directly cited as the basis for the engineer's duty to avoid prejudicing advice to the city.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This directly requires the engineer to advise the client if a project will not succeed

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This rule provides the standard against which the board distinguishes this case from prior precedents

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Conflicting interests between his private clients and the city would compromise his impartial advice.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Serving both private clients and the city is permissible only if interests and schedules do not conflict.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Allows multiple employment only when interests do not conflict, directly relating to the loyalty division constraint

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This role in private practice may serve multiple parties when interests and schedules do not conflict

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Serving multiple parties is permissible only if interests do not conflict, which relates to maintaining objectivity

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This role may take on additional project work for the city if interests and time schedules do not conflict with other clients

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Rule 17 allows dual employment absent conflicting interests, supporting the consent-based resolution under Canon 15.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Framing service to multiple parties must meet the non-conflicting interests standard set by this rule

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Rule 17 addresses when serving multiple parties in a dual role is permissible if interests do not conflict

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Rule 17 permits serving multiple parties when interests do not conflict, framing the city role as client service.

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This permits serving multiple parties only when interests and schedules do not conflict

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This rule permits multiple engagements only when interests and schedules do not conflict which is at issue here

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: This relates to whether retaining supplemental work conflicts with the city engineer role

Analysis-record edge (appliesTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=appliesTo; deterministic resolution from the Step-4 synthesis store (positional key, text-verified where carried, endpoint existence- and type-checked; no embedding or LLM)
value: Rule 17's conflict-of-interest condition underlies the Board's finding that the engineer serves only one client without divided loyalty.

Capability requirement edge (requiresCapability)
type: Derivation
comment: property=requiresCapability; capability requiredForObligations text resolved to the case Obligation(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select; emitted Obligation -> Capability (the obligation presupposes the capacity to discharge it)
value: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty

Capability requirement edge (requiresCapability)
type: Derivation
comment: property=requiresCapability; capability requiredForObligations text resolved to the case Obligation(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select; emitted Obligation -> Capability (the obligation presupposes the capacity to discharge it)
value: City Engineer Advisory Service Duty; City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty

Capability requirement edge (requiresCapability)
type: Derivation
comment: property=requiresCapability; capability requiredForObligations text resolved to the case Obligation(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select; emitted Obligation -> Capability (the obligation presupposes the capacity to discharge it)
value: City Engineer Advisory Service Duty

Capability requirement edge (requiresCapability)
type: Derivation
comment: property=requiresCapability; capability requiredForObligations text resolved to the case Obligation(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select; emitted Obligation -> Capability (the obligation presupposes the capacity to discharge it)
value: City Engineer Advisory Service Duty

Capability requirement edge (requiresCapability)
type: Derivation
comment: property=requiresCapability; capability requiredForObligations text resolved to the case Obligation(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select; emitted Obligation -> Capability (the obligation presupposes the capacity to discharge it)
value: City Engineer Advisory Service Duty; City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; the cause text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Part-Time Retention Acceptance

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; the effect text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Advisory Recommendation

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; the responsibleAgent text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; the cause text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Project Commission Retention

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; the effect text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Fee Compensation

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; the responsibleAgent text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Council

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; the cause text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Project Commission Acceptance

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; the effect text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Dual Capacity Arising

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; the responsibleAgent text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; the responsibleAgent text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; the cause text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Independent Review Waiver

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; the effect text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Own Plan Approval

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; the responsibleAgent text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City (client) and Professional Engineer

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; the responsibleAgent text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City (client) and Professional Engineer

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; the cause text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Advisory Recommendation

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; the effect text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Self-Interest Risk Arising

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; the responsibleAgent text of the causal chain resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; the converter-recorded causedByAction reference of the event resolved deterministically to the committed Action individual (fragment remap; no embedding or LLM)
value: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/103#Action_Project_Commission_Acceptance

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; the converter-recorded causedByAction reference of the event resolved deterministically to the committed Action individual (fragment remap; no embedding or LLM)
value: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/103#Action_Project_Commission_Retention

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; the converter-recorded causedByAction reference of the event resolved deterministically to the committed Action individual (fragment remap; no embedding or LLM)
value: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/103#Action_Part-Time_Retention_Acceptance

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; the initiates-state text of the happening resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Dual Capacity

Normative edge (fulfillsObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fulfillsObligation; the fulfillsObligation text of the action resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Duty to Avoid Prejudicing Advice (Rule 13)

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; the guidedByPrinciple text of the action resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Undivided Loyalty

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; the guidedByPrinciple text of the action resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Undivided Loyalty

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; the guidedByPrinciple text of the action resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Undivided Loyalty

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; the guidedByPrinciple text of the action resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Undivided Loyalty

Participant edge (isPerformedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=isPerformedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Board of Ethical Review

Participant edge (citedByAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=citedByAgent; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select; Board-pattern literal resolved deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board Agent
value: NSPE Board of Ethical Review

Participant edge (citedByAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=citedByAgent; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select; Board-pattern literal resolved deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board Agent
value: NSPE Board of Ethical Review

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select; Board-pattern literal resolved deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board Agent
value: Board of Ethical Review

Participant edge (isPerformedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=isPerformedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Participant edge (isPerformedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=isPerformedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Engineer Municipal Engineer

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select; Board-pattern literal resolved deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board Agent
value: Board of Ethical Review

Participant edge (isPerformedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=isPerformedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Participant edge (isPerformedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=isPerformedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Participant edge (isPerformedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=isPerformedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional Engineer

Participant edge (isPerformedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=isPerformedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Council

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select; Board-pattern literal resolved deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board Agent
value: Board of Ethical Review

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select; Board-pattern literal resolved deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board Agent
value: Board of Ethical Review

Actor relationship edge (hasClient)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=hasClient; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:54:16.268749+00:00
value: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer.

Actor relationship edge (hasClient)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=hasClient; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:54:16.269386+00:00
value: the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: The engineer treats his part-time service to the small community as service to a client, extending the client-service posture of his private practice to his municipal duties of advising the city council

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city, since council approval of a project may lead to his securing the commission for it

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: The Board frames the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans as city engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: The Board applies the axiom that a professional may not divide loyalties from those of the client, and finds that because the engineer serves only one client, the city, his capacity is dual but not divided.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: Because of his dual capacity, the city engineer must avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration, since approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: The city engineer must advise the city council on engineering problems, offer recommendations on engineering project considerations, and approve plans for engineering processes and works for the community.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: The city engineer must serve the small community faithfully as he would a client of his private practice, treating his part-time municipal service as service to a client.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
comment: re-minted 2026-07-11 from the positional provenance nodes; confidence not recorded by the original extraction
value: there is only one interested party, the client, and that party has given its consent to the arrangement.

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: The small community; The city council; The professional engineer

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: The small community; The city council; The professional engineer

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City; City council

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City; City council; Engineer

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City; City council; Engineer

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: The city council; The small community; The professional engineer

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: The city council; The small community; The professional engineer

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to avoid prejudicing advice to the city on the project under consideration

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to avoid prejudicing advice to the city on the project under consideration

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; the fromEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer... In addition to general advisory services to the city, the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; the toEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer... In addition to general advisory services to the city, the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; the toEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; the toEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; the toEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: There is still left for decision, however, the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer.

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; the fromEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; the toEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; the fromEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case. Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; the toEntity text of the temporal relation resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case. Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Action individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Action individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Event individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Event individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Action individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Action individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Action individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Action individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Action individual

Timeline membership edge (hasPart)
type: Derivation
comment: property=dcterms:hasPart; deterministic membership: every committed proeth-core:Action/Event individual is a part of the case timeline (no embedding or LLM); ordering carried separately by proeth:temporalSequence / Allen relations / time:hasTime
value: committed proeth-core:Event individual

Board of Ethical Review
type: Role
type: EthicsReviewBoardRole
type: NamedIndividual
case involvement: Adjudicates the present case, holding that the engineer acts in a dual but not divided capacity, that Canon 15 and Canon 27 do not bar the arrangement, that Rule 17 does not apply because only one party employs the engineer, that Rule 13 is binding, and cautioning that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in recommending approval of a project.
confidence: 0.85
other attribute: rel:adjudicates conduct of -> City Engineer
text references: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration
text references: We have previously noted that
text references: we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:37:15.682065+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Ethics Review Board Role'
matched ontology class: EthicsReviewBoardRole
matched ontology label: Ethics Review Board Role
matches existing: true
source text: There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present, but we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Adjudicates the present case, holding that the engineer acts in a dual but not divided capacity, that Canon 15 and Canon 27 do not bar the arrangement, that Rule 17 does not apply because only one party employs the engineer, that Rule 13 is binding, and cautioning that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in recommending approval of a project.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:37:15.682065+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Dual Capacity Arising → Self-Interest Risk Arising
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project.
causal step: 1. Dual Capacity Arising -- Engineer holds both advisory/approval and design roles for the same city
causal step: 2. Advisory Recommendation -- Engineer advises the council on projects whose approval could yield commissions for him
causal step: 3. Self-Interest Risk Arising -- Risk emerges that his advice could be prejudiced by the prospect of securing the commission
cause text: Dual Capacity Arising
counterfactual: Without the dual capacity, advice to the city could not benefit the engineer's own commission prospects and the self-interest risk would not arise
effect text: Self-Interest Risk Arising
necessary factors: Council's reliance on the engineer's guidance for project approval
necessary factors: Dual capacity as advisor/reviewer and prospective project designer
necessary factors: Financial fee compensation flowing from project commissions
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City Engineer
responsible agent text: Professional Engineer
sufficient factors: Dual capacity combined with the prospect that project approval leads to a fee-bearing commission
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
comment: The question arose because the engineer's part-time advisory retention created an inherent conflict once he also sought project-specific commissions from the same client, forcing scrutiny of whether one person can simultaneously be an objective advisor and a self-interested designer for the same body.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Theoretical question 2: From a consequentialist standpoint, does the fact that th...
comment: The question arises because the case data shows an engineer occupying two roles with a built-in incentive for biased advice, and the good outcome in this instance invites debate over whether results alone can excuse a process that violates loyalty and objectivity principles.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Theoretical question 3: Did the engineer act with professional integrity when he...
comment: The question arises because the engineer's simultaneous occupancy of author and reviewer roles collapses the separation that professional review normally requires, and no external check (client consent, independent review) is confirmed to have addressed this collapse.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Counterfactual question 1: If the engineer had received no separate professional fee...
comment: This question arose because Case No. 62-7 links the engineer's fee arrangement (Fee Compensation) to the Board's warning against self-interest, but it is unclear whether the Board's warrant was grounded in the financial incentive itself or in the inherent structural conflict of Own Plan Approval, prompting a hypothetical to isolate the true basis of the ruling.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Counterfactual question 2: If the engineer had been a full-time salaried employee of...
comment: The question arises because the Board's no-violation conclusion rests on classifying the engineer as an independent practitioner serving a client, and this classification is precisely the fact that Canon 27 treats as decisive, so altering that single fact exposes whether the ruling depends on employment form rather than on the underlying loyalty conflict.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Counterfactual question 3: If the same engineer who prepared the plans and specifica...
comment: The question arose because removing any independent check collapses the separation between the design role and the advisory approval role that previously justified similar dual arrangements, forcing the Board to decide whether its earlier conclusion depended on that missing safeguard.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Implicit question 1: Since the engineer approves plans for engineering process...
comment: The question arises because the engineer's ordinary advisory duty to the city, which relies on objective review, is structurally compromised once he becomes the very party being reviewed under the supplemental design commission, creating a foreseeable self-interest conflict.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Implicit question 2: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental d...
comment: The question arises because the prospect of a lucrative supplemental commission creates a structural incentive that could bias the engineer's ostensibly objective advisory judgment, and no clear separation between the advisory and design roles is established in the facts.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Implicit question 3: Should the city be required to obtain independent third-p...
comment: The question arises because the city engineer's part-time dual role as both designer and approver of the same project creates an inherent structural conflict that the non-technical council cannot resolve, leaving open whether self-review or external review satisfies the duty of objectivity.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Implicit question 4: Does the practice of treating part-time municipal service...
comment: The question arises because characterizing municipal service as a client relationship obscures whether the engineer's governing warrant is contractual fidelity or public trust, and the case facts (Rule 13, self-review of own plans) expose this ambiguity.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Principle-tension question 1: How should Objectivity in Advising City be balanced again...
comment: The question arises because the same set of facts, a part time city engineer advising on a project he could later be paid to design, supports two plausible but conflicting principles, undivided loyalty to the city and self-interest in securing work, and no clear rule specifies which controls absent safeguards like disclosure or independent review.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Principle-tension question 2: Does Self-Review of Own Plans conflict with Undivided Loy...
comment: The question arose because Dual Capacity Arising and Fee Compensation placed the engineer simultaneously inside the advisory role and the design role, so Own Plan Approval became an act that could be read either as competent faithful service or as a structurally biased self-review, and the Board had to decide which warrant should control.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Principle-tension question 3: Is Client Consent to Dual Capacity sufficient to resolve...
comment: The question emerges because Client Consent to Dual Capacity is offered as a resolving warrant, but the underlying structural conflict, the engineer approving and advising on his own commissioned work, remains unaddressed by consent alone, leaving the Board of Ethical Review to weigh loyalty-based justification against objectivity-based prohibition.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: QuestionEmergence
type: NamedIndividual
explains question: Theoretical question 1: From a deontological perspective, did the engineer fulfil...
comment: The question arises because the engineer's own actions collapsed the separation between advisor and advisee that the loyalty principle assumes, forcing a choice between judging the arrangement by role structure versus by actual outcome or consent.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Board conclusion 1: It is not unethical for an engineer retained by a communi...
comment: Given that the engineer occupied a part-time advisory position and additionally sought the design commission, the board concluded the arrangement was not inherently unethical but conditioned that conclusion on the engineer exercising scrupulous care against letting his design ambitions color his advice.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 6: Regarding Q303: Professional integrity, understood as a v...
comment: Given that the engineer both prepares and approves his own plans without independent check, the board concluded that professional integrity is strained because impartial self-review is inherently difficult, making the arrangement's ethical adequacy dependent on the individual engineer's character rather than on the structure of the engagement.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 7: Regarding Q401: The Board's concern about scrupulous care...
comment: Given that the Board located the ethical risk in the structural incentive to secure future work and maintain the client relationship rather than in the fee itself, it concluded that even a fee-free arrangement would still call for scrupulous care against the engineer's secondary interest.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 8: Regarding Q402: If the engineer were a full-time salaried...
comment: Because the engineer's status was that of an independent practitioner retained part-time rather than a full-time salaried employee, the Board concluded no Canon 27 violation existed, but recognized that a change to salaried employment status would likely flip this conclusion to a violation.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 9: Regarding Q403: The Board's conclusion of no inherent une...
comment: Because the Board's tolerance of self-review rested on an assumption of heightened diligence, it reasoned that if that diligence were absent and approval were uncontested, the same facts would transform a manageable conflict into an unmitigated structural defect.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 1: The Board resolves the tension between Objectivity in Adv...
comment: Given that both roles served the same client, the city, the Board reasoned that requiring the engineer to exercise scrupulous personal care was an adequate substitute for structurally separating the advisory and design functions.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 2: The conflict between Self-Review of Own Plans and Undivid...
comment: Because the Board relied on the engineer's presumed diligence rather than mandating independent review, it left the self-review and loyalty conflict structurally unresolved, acknowledging the gap but treating individual conduct as the deciding factor.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 3: Although Client Consent to Dual Capacity might seem like...
comment: Because the city council's consent in this case was general (to retain the engineer) rather than specific (to the conflict of interest), the Board could not rest its approval on informed consent; instead, finding no evidence of compromised judgment, it grounded its conclusion in the engineer's own professional self-restraint as sufficient safeguard.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 1: The Board's requirement of 'scrupulous care' does not res...
comment: Because the engineer who prepares the plans is also the one who approves them under his advisory role, the critique concludes that the board's call for scrupulous care leaves the self-review structural gap unaddressed, since no external safeguard is presumed or required.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 2: The Board's admonition to guard against influence from 's...
comment: Given that the design commission pays a separate fee, the board's finding of no inherent violation rests on an assumption that the engineer's integrity will resist this quantifiable incentive at the advisory stage, rather than on any mechanism that removes the incentive itself.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 3: The Board's characterization of the part-time city engine...
comment: Because the board treated the part-time arrangement as client service rather than employment, it applied Rule 17 and Canon 15 rather than Canon 27, leaving open whether a salaried employment relationship would have changed the ethical analysis.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 1: Regarding Q101: Yes, the dual role creates an inherent st...
comment: Given that the engineer's approval authority and design authorship coincide in the same person, the board concludes the self-review structure inherently undermines independence, irrespective of how skilled or well-intentioned the engineer is.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 2: Regarding Q102: The prospect of a lucrative supplemental...
comment: Given that the supplemental design fee is paid on top of the retainer and the advisory recommendation logically precedes the design commission, the board concluded that a foreseeable financial incentive exists that could color the engineer's judgment on project necessity, activating the Advisory Service Duty's requirement of disinterested judgment.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 3: Regarding Q104: Framing part-time municipal service as 's...
comment: Given that the arrangement is characterized as client service rather than public employment, the board concluded that the ethical obligations are not diminished but rather intensified, because the client-service framing creates an incentive structure absent in a salaried public role.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 4: Regarding Q301: From a strict deontological view emphasiz...
comment: Given that the advisory and design roles both run to the same city, the board concluded that a strict deontological reading of divided loyalty is questionable, but that reconceiving the duty as a single loyalty to the city preserves ethical fulfillment as long as the engineer subordinates self-interest throughout.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: ResolutionPattern
type: NamedIndividual
describes resolution of: Analytical conclusion 5: Regarding Q302: A consequentialist analysis focused solel...
comment: Given that the city received satisfactory plans, a purely consequentialist view would approve the arrangement, but the board concluded this reasoning is incomplete because it ignores the unseen risk of biased advice and alternatives never pursued.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

preparation of plans and specifications for specific projects during ongoing part-time city engineer retainer
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer
from entity text: preparation of plans and specifications for specific projects
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
to entity text: ongoing part-time city engineer retainer
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

full-time private practice overlaps part-time service as city engineer
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
from entity text: full-time private practice
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
to entity text: part-time service as city engineer
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

engineer's preparation of his own plans before engineer passing judgment on (approving) those plans as city engineer
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: There is still left for decision, however, the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer.
from entity text: engineer's preparation of his own plans
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Own Plan Approval
to entity text: engineer passing judgment on (approving) those plans as city engineer
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Own Plan Approval
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

engineer's advice/recommendation to the city on a project before city council approval of the project
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission
from entity: Advisory Recommendation
from entity text: engineer's advice/recommendation to the city on a project
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: city council approval of the project
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

city council approval of a project before engineer securing a commission for that project
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
from entity text: city council approval of a project
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Project Commission Retention
to entity text: engineer securing a commission for that project
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Project Commission Retention
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Continuing, at each recommendation to the city council
type: ProperInterval

At the outset of the engagement
type: Instant

Upon the engineer's acceptance of a project commission while serving as retained city engineer
type: ProperInterval

Following each project commission retention by the city council
type: ProperInterval

Ongoing, inferred from the arrangement as it operates
type: ProperInterval

Recurring, when project plans he prepared come before him for approval
type: ProperInterval

Outset of the engagement, initial arrangement
type: ProperInterval

Recurring, whenever the city council retains him for a specific project
type: ProperInterval

Recurring, after the initial part-time retention, when specific city projects arise
type: Instant

Whenever a project on which the engineer advises could result in a commission for him
type: ProperInterval

City Municipal Client
type: Role
type: ClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Consent to Dual Capacity
case involvement: The small community retains the professional engineer part-time as city engineer, receives advisory and plan-approval services through its city council, and may additionally retain him for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, compensating him on a fee basis over and above the monthly retainer.
confidence: 0.9
other attribute: rel:retains -> City Engineer
role nature: small community, municipal government acting through its city council
text references: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer.
text references: treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:36:18.439490+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Role'
matched ontology class: ClientRole
matched ontology label: Client Role
matches existing: true
source text: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer. The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The small community retains the professional engineer part-time as city engineer, receives advisory and plan-approval services through its city council, and may additionally retain him for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, compensating him on a fee basis over and above the monthly retainer.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:36:18.439490+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 1: Regarding Q101: Yes, the dual role creates an inherent st...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Implicit question 1: Since the engineer approves plans for engineering process...
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Regarding Q101: Yes, the dual role creates an inherent structural problem because the same individual who exercises City Engineer Plan Approval Competence in his advisory capacity is also the author of the plans he would be approving under the supplemental design commission. Self-review by the plan's own creator undermines the independence that the approval function is meant to provide, regardless of the engineer's technical competence or good faith.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 2: Regarding Q102: The prospect of a lucrative supplemental...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Implicit question 2: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental d...
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Regarding Q102: The prospect of a lucrative supplemental design fee, paid over and above the monthly retainer, constitutes a foreseeable financial incentive that could color the engineer's Advisory Recommendation to the city council on whether a project should proceed at all. This is precisely the secondary interest the Board warns against, since the engineer's Advisory Service Duty requires disinterested judgment on project necessity, timing, and scope prior to any design commission being awarded.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 3: Regarding Q104: Framing part-time municipal service as 's...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Implicit question 4: Does the practice of treating part-time municipal service...
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Regarding Q104: Framing part-time municipal service as 'service to a client' rather than as a public duty does not diminish the engineer's ethical obligations; if anything, it heightens the need for vigilance, because a client-service mentality naturally orients the engineer toward securing follow-on paid work (the design commission) rather than purely toward public interest, whereas a salaried public employee would have no comparable direct financial stake in generating additional billable engagements.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 4: Regarding Q301: From a strict deontological view emphasiz...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Theoretical question 1: From a deontological perspective, did the engineer fulfil...
cited provision: Canon 15
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Regarding Q301: From a strict deontological view emphasizing an unqualified duty of undivided loyalty, the engineer's fulfillment of that duty is questionable, since his loyalty was formally divided between two roles serving the same client but with different incentive structures. However, because both roles ultimately serve the same city, the duty may be reconceived as a single duty of loyalty to the city's interests, provided the engineer subordinates his personal financial interest at every decision point, a demanding but not impossible standard.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 5: Regarding Q302: A consequentialist analysis focused solel...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Theoretical question 2: From a consequentialist standpoint, does the fact that th...
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: Regarding Q302: A consequentialist analysis focused solely on outcome quality would find the arrangement acceptable if the plans were competent and the city satisfied, but this reasoning is incomplete because it ignores unrealized counterfactual harms, such as projects that should not have been recommended but were, or better independent designs that were never considered. Ethical evaluation of professional conduct rules cannot rest on ex post outcomes alone when the harm at issue is a systemic risk of biased advice.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 6: Regarding Q303: Professional integrity, understood as a v...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Theoretical question 3: Did the engineer act with professional integrity when he...
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: Regarding Q303: Professional integrity, understood as a virtue of impartial self-scrutiny, is strained when an engineer reviews and approves his own work product, since genuine impartiality toward one's own creation is psychologically difficult even for well-intentioned professionals. The virtue-based lens suggests that maintaining integrity in this dual role depends heavily on the engineer's individual character and discipline rather than on any structural safeguard within the arrangement itself.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 7: Regarding Q401: The Board's concern about scrupulous care...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Counterfactual question 1: If the engineer had received no separate professional fee...
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: Regarding Q401: The Board's concern about scrupulous care against the engineer's secondary interest would likely persist even absent a separate professional fee, because the incentive to secure future retentions, enhanced professional reputation, and continued client relationship with the city are independent motivators beyond the immediate fee, meaning the structural conflict is rooted in Prospective Commission Incentive generally rather than the fee amount alone.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 8: Regarding Q402: If the engineer were a full-time salaried...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Counterfactual question 2: If the engineer had been a full-time salaried employee of...
cited provision: Canon 27
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: Regarding Q402: If the engineer were a full-time salaried city employee, the Board's analysis would likely shift, since Canon 27 explicitly prohibits using a salaried position to compete unfairly with another engineer for outside design work; the current conclusion's permissiveness rests specifically on the engineer's status as an independent practitioner retained on a part-time basis, not as a public employee, making the counterfactual scenario likely to yield a violation rather than the Board's stated non-violation.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 9: Regarding Q403: The Board's conclusion of no inherent une...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Counterfactual question 3: If the same engineer who prepared the plans and specifica...
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: Regarding Q403: The Board's conclusion of no inherent unethicality is conditioned on the engineer exercising heightened scrupulous care; if it were established that the same engineer gave final, uncontested approval to his own plans with no independent check whatsoever, the conflict of interest would move from a manageable risk to an unmitigated structural defect, and the Board's tolerant conclusion would likely not hold without qualification or added safeguards such as independent review.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 1: The Board resolves the tension between Objectivity in Adv...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Principle-tension question 1: How should Objectivity in Advising City be balanced again...
cited provision: Rule 13
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolves the tension between Objectivity in Advising City and the engineer's Prospective Commission Incentive not by structurally separating the advisory and design roles, but by imposing a heightened personal duty of vigilance on the engineer himself. This shows that where dual-role conflicts arise from a single professional's overlapping duties to one client, the Board prioritizes an internalized ethical standard ('scrupulous care') over external procedural safeguards, effectively subordinating the principle of strict role-separation to trust in individual professional integrity.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 2: The conflict between Self-Review of Own Plans and Undivid...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Principle-tension question 2: Does Self-Review of Own Plans conflict with Undivided Loy...
cited provision: Canon 15
cited provision: Rule 13
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The conflict between Self-Review of Own Plans and Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity remains structurally unresolved in the Board's reasoning: no independent third-party review is required, and the same engineer both prepares and approves the project design. This reveals that the Board treats loyalty and objectivity as compatible in principle only if the engineer's own diligence is sufficient, leaving the case's ethical soundness contingent on individual conduct rather than institutional checks -- a gap the Board's language acknowledges but does not close.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

retention as part-time city engineer before retention to prepare plans and specifications for a specific city project
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer... In addition to general advisory services to the city, the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project.
from entity: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
from entity text: retention as part-time city engineer
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Project Commission Retention
to entity text: retention to prepare plans and specifications for a specific city project
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Project Commission Retention
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

client's waiver of its right to independent review before engineer acting in dual capacity approving his own plans
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case. Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity
from entity: Independent Review Waiver
from entity text: client's waiver of its right to independent review
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Own Plan Approval
to entity text: engineer acting in dual capacity approving his own plans
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Own Plan Approval
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Board Precedent Distinction
type: Capability
type: PrecedentReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Board of Ethical Review
case context: The Board of Ethical Review reasons from prior cases No. 60-5 and No. 62-7 and distinguishes the instant case on the ground that the engineer has only one client, concluding he acts in a dual but not a divided capacity.
confidence: 0.85
text references: The distinguishing fact in the instant case is that the engineer has only one client, and he is, therefore, not subject to the same pressures to temper his service to one client in order to satisfy the other.
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:41:35.115808+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Via class 'Precedent Reasoning Capability': Distinguishing the instant case from a cited prior opinion is the canonical Precedent Reasoning Capability; no new class is needed.
matched ontology class: PrecedentReasoningCapability
matched ontology label: Precedent Reasoning Capability
matches existing: true
source text: A somewhat similar situation was analyzed in Case No. 62-7. ... The distinguishing fact in the instant case is that the engineer has only one client, and he is, therefore, not subject to the same pressures to temper his service to one client in order to satisfy the other.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The Board of Ethical Review reasons from prior cases No. 60-5 and No. 62-7 and distinguishes the instant case on the ground that the engineer has only one client, concluding he acts in a dual but not a divided capacity.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:41:35.115808+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Part-Time Retention Acceptance → Advisory Recommendation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
causal step: 1. Part-Time Retention Acceptance -- Engineer in full-time private practice accepts part-time retention as city engineer
causal step: 2. Client Service Framing -- Engineer treats the community as a client of his private practice
causal step: 3. Advisory Recommendation -- Engineer advises the council and recommends approval of engineering projects as part of his defined duties
cause: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
cause text: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
counterfactual: Without accepting the part-time retention, the engineer would have no advisory role and would not be positioned to recommend project approvals to the city council
effect: Advisory Recommendation
effect text: Advisory Recommendation
necessary factors: City delegating advisory and approval duties to the position
necessary factors: Engineer accepting the part-time city engineer position
necessary factors: Ongoing engineering matters requiring council guidance
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City Engineer
responsible agent text: Professional Engineer
sufficient factors: Acceptance of retention combined with the defined duties of advising and recommending to the council
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Project Commission Retention → Fee Compensation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In such cases, he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer.
causal step: 1. Project Commission Retention -- City council retains the same engineer for preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
causal step: 2. Project Commission Acceptance -- Engineer accepts the design commission from the city he serves
causal step: 3. Fee Compensation -- Engineer is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer
cause: Project Commission Retention
cause text: Project Commission Retention
counterfactual: Without the additional project retention, the engineer would receive only the monthly retainer and no professional fee for project design
effect: Fee Compensation
effect text: Fee Compensation
necessary factors: City council decision to retain the engineer for plans and specifications
necessary factors: Existence of a compensable city project
necessary factors: Fee arrangement separate from the monthly retainer
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: City
responsible agent text: City Council
sufficient factors: Council's retention of the engineer for project work under normal professional fee terms
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Project Commission Acceptance → Dual Capacity Arising
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one.
causal step: 1. Part-Time Retention Acceptance -- Engineer becomes part-time city engineer with approval duties
causal step: 2. Project Commission Retention -- City council offers the same engineer the project design work
causal step: 3. Project Commission Acceptance -- Engineer accepts the design commission while retaining the city engineer role
causal step: 4. Dual Capacity Arising -- Engineer now serves simultaneously as designer and reviewing/approving city engineer
cause: Project Commission Acceptance
cause text: Project Commission Acceptance
counterfactual: Had the engineer declined the design commission or resigned the advisory post, no dual capacity would exist
effect: Dual Capacity Arising
effect text: Dual Capacity Arising
necessary factors: Acceptance of the additional design commission from the same city
necessary factors: Both roles serving the same single client
necessary factors: Pre-existing role as part-time city engineer with review and approval duties
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: City Engineer
responsible agent text: Professional Engineer
sufficient factors: Acceptance of the project commission while continuing to hold the city engineer position
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Advisory Recommendation → Self-Interest Risk Arising
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance.
causal step: 1. Advisory Recommendation -- Engineer studies and recommends approval of a project to the city council
causal step: 2. Self-Interest Risk Arising -- Because approval may lead to his securing the commission, a risk of prejudiced advice arises
causal step: 3. Project Commission Retention -- Council, relying on his guidance, retains him for the approved project's design
causal step: 4. Fee Compensation -- Engineer receives a professional fee over and above his retainer, completing the self-interest loop
cause: Advisory Recommendation
cause text: Advisory Recommendation
counterfactual: If the engineer refrained from advising on projects he might later design, the specific risk of prejudiced advice would not materialize
effect: Self-Interest Risk Arising
effect text: Self-Interest Risk Arising
necessary factors: Council's exclusive reliance on the engineer for guidance
necessary factors: Engineer's act of advising and recommending project approval to the council
necessary factors: Prospect that project approval leads to a design commission for the engineer
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City Engineer
responsible agent text: Professional Engineer
sufficient factors: Recommendation of a project by the same engineer who stands to receive the resulting commission
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Design Competence
type: Capability
type: EngineeringDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: City Engineer
case context: The professional engineer may be retained by the city council, in addition to general advisory services, for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer. The retention is conditional, but it evidences a design competence he possesses.
confidence: 0.83
text references: the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:39:06.618684+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Engineering Design Capability': The competence to prepare plans and specifications for a project is the same concept as the previously extracted Engineering Design Capability, the competence to produce an engineering design including plans and analyses. Reused rather than minting a near-duplicate.
matched ontology class: EngineeringDesignCapability
matched ontology label: Engineering Design Capability
matches existing: true
source text: In addition to general advisory services to the city, the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The professional engineer may be retained by the city council, in addition to general advisory services, for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer. The retention is conditional, but it evidences a design competence he possesses.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:39:06.618684+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
addresses question: Principle-tension question 3: Is Client Consent to Dual Capacity sufficient to resolve...
aligns with conclusion: Analytical conclusion 3: Although Client Consent to Dual Capacity might seem like...
decides question: Principle-tension question 3: Is Client Consent to Dual Capacity sufficient to resolve...
board resolution: Although Client Consent to Dual Capacity might seem like the natural mechanism to legitimize the engineer's overlapping roles, the case facts do not indicate that the city council gave informed consent to the specific conflict of interest; rather, the Board's approval rests on the engineer's fiduciary self-restraint. This suggests that in the Board's hierarchy of principles, procedural consent by the client is not treated as a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving structural conflicts of interest -- professional self-regulation is prioritized over contractual transparency.
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the engineer seek explicit informed consent from the city council to the specific self-review conflict in his dual role, or proceed relying on the council's general waiver of independent plan review?
focus: Given that the city generally retained the engineer without specifically consenting to the self-review conflict inherent in his dual role, the engineer must decide whether to seek explicit informed consent or proceed on the basis of the city's general waiver.
intensity score: 0.6
option: 1. Seek Explicit Informed Consent to Dual Role: Formally disclose the specific self-review and incentive conflict to the council and obtain documented consent before proceeding.
option: 2. Rely on General Waiver Implicit in Retention: Proceed relying on the city's general waiver of independent review as sufficient basis for performing both advisory and design roles.
option: 3. Engage Independent Reviewer Regardless of Consent: Bypass the consent question by arranging for independent third-party review of the plans as a structural safeguard, irrespective of the council's waiver.
qc alignment score: 0.58
role label: Engineer
toulmin claim: The engineer may proceed on the basis of the city's general waiver of independent review, though seeking explicit informed consent to the specific self-review conflict would better ground his conduct.
toulmin data: The city council retained the engineer generally as part-time city engineer and separately for the design commission, without a documented disclosure specifically addressing the self-review conflict; the city has evidently waived its right to independent review.
toulmin qualifier: Unless the council's general waiver is shown to be uninformed as to the specific self-review risk.
toulmin rebuttal: This warrant would not apply if the council's general retention decision failed to reflect actual awareness of the self-review structure, making a separate informed-consent step necessary rather than redundant.
toulmin warrant: A client's waiver of a right of review is effective when the client has consented to the arrangement giving rise to it; general retention of the engineer in his dual capacity constitutes the city's waiver of independent review of his plans.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Self-Review of Own Plans
type: Principle
type: SelfCertificationProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Board of Ethical Review
applied to: the engineer's review of the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer
concrete expression: The Board frames the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans as city engineer, and resolves it by noting the client holds the right of review by its own engineer and may waive that right, as the city has obviously done.
confidence: 0.84
interpretation: The Canons and Rules impose no requirement that an engineer's plans be reviewed by another engineer retained by the client; the client may waive its right of review, so the self-review concern does not bar the dual-capacity arrangement here.
text references: There is no requirement in either the Canons or Rules that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client. The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case.
text references: the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.88
match reasoning: Via class 'Independent Review Principle': The concern about the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans is the self-review value expressed by the existing Independent Review Principle; the Board treats it as waivable by the sole client.
matched ontology class: SelfCertificationProhibitionPrinciple
matched ontology label: Independent Review Principle
matches existing: true
source text: There is still left for decision, however, the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer. There is no requirement in either the Canons or Rules that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client. The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The Board frames the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans as city engineer, and resolves it by noting the client holds the right of review by its own engineer and may waive that right, as the city has obviously done.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Independent Review Waiver → Own Plan Approval
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case.
causal step: 1. Project Commission Acceptance -- Engineer prepares plans and specifications for the city project
causal step: 2. Independent Review Waiver -- City waives its right to have the plans reviewed by another engineer
causal step: 3. Own Plan Approval -- Engineer, as city engineer, passes on the adequacy of his own plans
cause: Independent Review Waiver
cause text: Independent Review Waiver
counterfactual: Had the city exercised its right to review by another engineer, the engineer would not pass on the adequacy of his own plans
effect: Own Plan Approval
effect text: Own Plan Approval
necessary factors: City's implicit waiver of independent engineering review
necessary factors: Engineer having prepared the plans under the project commission
necessary factors: Engineer's role as the city's approving engineer
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: City
responsible agent: City Engineer
responsible agent text: City (client) and Professional Engineer
sufficient factors: Waiver of review combined with the engineer's dual role as preparer and approver of plans
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Board conclusion 1: It is not unethical for an engineer retained by a communi...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
board conclusion type: no_violation
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It is not unethical for an engineer retained by a community on a part-time basis as a city engineer to prepare plans and specifications for a project for the same community, but in so acting the engineer must be scrupulously careful that his advice is not influenced by his secondary interest as the engineer likely to be retained for the design of the project.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 1: The Board's requirement of 'scrupulous care' does not res...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Implicit question 1: Since the engineer approves plans for engineering process...
answers question: Implicit question 3: Should the city be required to obtain independent third-p...
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: The Board's requirement of 'scrupulous care' does not resolve the structural problem that the engineer, in his advisory capacity, is tasked with approving plans and specifications that he himself prepared under the supplemental commission. This self-review function—Own Plan Approval performed by the same individual holding Own Plan Adequacy Review capability—lacks the external check that would normally validate an engineer's approval of another's work. The Board's conclusion that the arrangement is not inherently unethical presumes the engineer's personal discipline can substitute for institutional safeguards such as independent third-party review, but this presumption is not explicitly tested or justified in the reasoning.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 2: The Board's admonition to guard against influence from 's...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Implicit question 2: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental d...
answers question: Principle-tension question 1: How should Objectivity in Advising City be balanced again...
cited provision: Rule 13
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's admonition to guard against influence from 'secondary interest' implicitly acknowledges a financial incentive structure: the engineer's advisory recommendations about whether and how a project should proceed directly affect the likelihood that he will receive a supplemental, separately compensated design commission. This creates a conflict between the Objectivity in Advising City principle and the Prospective Commission Incentive event, one that exists at the moment of advisory recommendation—prior to and independent of any subsequent self-review of his own plans. The Board's finding of no inherent violation therefore rests on trusting the engineer's professional integrity to resist a financial incentive that is real and quantifiable (the professional fee 'over and above his monthly retainer'), rather than on any structural mechanism removing the incentive itself.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 3: The Board's characterization of the part-time city engine...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Implicit question 4: Does the practice of treating part-time municipal service...
answers question: Counterfactual question 2: If the engineer had been a full-time salaried employee of...
cited provision: Canon 15
cited provision: Canon 27
cited provision: Rule 17
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's characterization of the part-time city engineer's service as 'service to a client' rather than as an internal governmental function is significant: it frames the ethical analysis under Rule 17's multiple-employment provisions and Canon 15's compensation-from-multiple-parties concern, rather than under Canon 27's salaried-position prohibition. Had the engineer instead held a full-time salaried municipal position, the Board's reasoning suggests a different provision (Canon 27, addressing unfair competitive advantage from a salaried role) would likely govern, potentially yielding a different or more restrictive conclusion. The Board's silence on this distinction leaves open whether the 'not unethical' finding is contingent specifically on the engineer's status as an independent, part-time contractor rather than a municipal employee.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Analytical conclusion 3: Although Client Consent to Dual Capacity might seem like...
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question: Principle-tension question 3: Is Client Consent to Dual Capacity sufficient to resolve...
cited provision: Canon 15
cited provision: Rule 17
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: Although Client Consent to Dual Capacity might seem like the natural mechanism to legitimize the engineer's overlapping roles, the case facts do not indicate that the city council gave informed consent to the specific conflict of interest; rather, the Board's approval rests on the engineer's fiduciary self-restraint. This suggests that in the Board's hierarchy of principles, procedural consent by the client is not treated as a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving structural conflicts of interest -- professional self-regulation is prioritized over contractual transparency.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Rule 13
type: CodeProvisionReference
type: NamedIndividual
applies to: Advisory Recommendation
applies to: City Engineer Engineering Advisory Competence
applies to: Objectivity in Advising City
applies to: Rule 13 Binding Condition
comment: He will advise his client when he believes a project will not be successful.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Supplemental Plans Retention Condition
type: State
type: DualCapacityState
type: NamedIndividual
affects: City
affects: City Engineer
active period: When and if the city council retains the engineer for preparation of plans and specifications, in addition to his advisory and plan approval duties
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: The condition of serving one public client in two compensated capacities makes the faithful agent relationship to the city the concrete frame for evaluating the engineer's advisory, approval, and design duties.
subject: The professional engineer serving as part-time city engineer
terminated by: Completion of the plans and specifications engagement
text references: In addition to general advisory services to the city, the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project. In such cases, he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer.
triggering event: The city council retains the engineer for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:36:13.834446+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Dual Capacity State': The synonym table folds Dual Role Service State, Single Client Dual Capacity State, and Supplemental Engagement State into the canonical DualCapacityState. This condition, one engineer serving the same city as advisor and plan approver while also available for supplemental design retention alongside private practice, is exactly that dual capacity concept.
matched ontology class: DualCapacityState
matched ontology label: DualCapacityState
matches existing: true
source text: In addition to general advisory services to the city, the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project. In such cases, he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: The professional engineer serving as part-time city engineer
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:36:13.834446+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Case No. 60-5
type: PrecedentCaseReference
type: Resource
type: CasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
citation type: supporting
cited by agent: Board of Ethical Review
confidence: 0.92
document title: Case No. 60-5
text references: We have previously noted that "although neither the Canons nor the Rules refer specifically to a 'conflict of interest,' it is axiomatic that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client." (Case No. 60-5)
topic: conflict of interest and divided loyalties of a professional toward employer or client
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:36:54.065244+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Via class 'Case Precedent': The cited prior board opinions Case No. 60-5 and Case No. 62-7 are precedent cases used for analogical reasoning, which is exactly the canonical Case Precedent class; no new class is needed.
matched ontology class: CasePrecedent
matched ontology label: Case Precedent
matches existing: true
source text: (Case No. 60-5)
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: topic
comment: Case No. 60-5 (topic: conflict of interest and divided loyalties of a professional toward employer or client)
comment: Cited to establish the foundational principle that a professional may not act in a way that divides loyalties between employer/client interests, even though the Canons and Rules do not explicitly mention 'conflict of interest.'
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:36:54.065244+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Case No. 62-7
type: PrecedentCaseReference
type: Resource
type: CasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
citation type: distinguishing
cited by agent: Board of Ethical Review
confidence: 0.92
document title: Case No. 62-7
text references: A somewhat similar situation was analyzed in Case No. 62-7. Here it was held that there would be a conflict of interest in a situation in which a consulting engineer was retained by a county commission to perform all engineering and advisory services for it, including review and approval of plans submitted by other engineers
topic: conflict of interest of a consultant serving a county commission and a private company with opposing interests
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:36:54.065244+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Via class 'Case Precedent': The cited prior board opinions Case No. 60-5 and Case No. 62-7 are precedent cases used for analogical reasoning, which is exactly the canonical Case Precedent class; no new class is needed.
matched ontology class: CasePrecedent
matched ontology label: Case Precedent
matches existing: true
source text: A somewhat similar situation was analyzed in Case No. 62-7.
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: topic
comment: Case No. 62-7 (topic: conflict of interest of a consultant serving a county commission and a private company with opposing interests)
comment: Cited as an analogous prior case involving dual roles for an engineer, but ultimately distinguished because that case involved two separate clients with potentially conflicting interests, whereas the instant case involves only one client.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:36:54.065244+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Own Plan Adequacy Review
type: Capability
type: AdequacyAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: City Engineer
case context: In his capacity as city engineer, the engineer passes on the adequacy of his own plans for the city project, the city having waived its right to review by another engineer, so his advisory and plan-approval service presupposes this competence.
confidence: 0.85
text references: Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one.
text references: the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:41:35.115808+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Adequacy Assessment Capability'
matched ontology class: AdequacyAssessmentCapability
matched ontology label: Adequacy Assessment Capability
matches existing: true
source text: There is still left for decision, however, the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer. There is no requirement in either the Canons or Rules that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client. The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: In his capacity as city engineer, the engineer passes on the adequacy of his own plans for the city project, the city having waived its right to review by another engineer, so his advisory and plan-approval service presupposes this competence.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:41:35.115808+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Plan Approval Competence
type: Capability
type: AdequacyAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: City Engineer
case context: The city engineer approves plans for engineering processes and works as part of his usual duties for the city, judging whether submitted plans meet the standard required before approval.
confidence: 0.85
text references: approving plans for engineering processes and works
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:39:06.618684+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Adequacy Assessment Capability': Approving plans for engineering processes and works is the competence to judge whether a submitted plan meets the required standard, which is exactly the existing Adequacy Assessment Capability. The municipal plan-approval subject is context, not a distinct kind.
matched ontology class: AdequacyAssessmentCapability
matched ontology label: Adequacy Assessment Capability
matches existing: true
source text: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The city engineer approves plans for engineering processes and works as part of his usual duties for the city, judging whether submitted plans meet the standard required before approval.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:39:06.618684+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
addresses question: Implicit question 2: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental d...
addresses question: Counterfactual question 1: If the engineer had received no separate professional fee...
aligns with conclusion: Analytical conclusion 2: The Board's admonition to guard against influence from 's...
decides question: Implicit question 2: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental d...
involves obligation: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
board chosen option: Recommend With Doubly Careful Scrutiny
board resolution: The Board's admonition to guard against influence from 'secondary interest' implicitly acknowledges a financial incentive structure: the engineer's advisory recommendations about whether and how a project should proceed directly affect the likelihood that he will receive a supplemental, separately compensated design commission. This creates a conflict between the Objectivity in Advising City principle and the Prospective Commission Incentive event, one that exists at the moment of advisory recommendation—prior to and independent of any subsequent self-review of his own plans. The Board's finding of no inherent violation therefore rests on trusting the engineer's professional integrity to resist a financial incentive that is real and quantifiable (the professional fee 'over and above his mo
decision point id: DP3
decision question: When advising the council on the project, should the engineer give his recommendation as usual while applying extra scrutiny, or first disclose the incentive or recuse himself to protect objectivity?
focus: When advising the council on whether a project should proceed, the engineer must decide how to handle the fact that his own advisory recommendation affects his prospects for the separately compensated design commission.
intensity score: 0.65
option: 1. Recommend With Doubly Careful Scrutiny: Provide the advisory recommendation to the council while applying heightened, doubly careful scrutiny to offset the commission incentive.
option: 2. Recuse From Recommending on Sought Projects: Decline to render an advisory recommendation on any project the engineer intends to pursue for the design commission.
option: 3. Disclose Incentive Before Advising: Disclose the prospective commission interest to the council explicitly before giving the recommendation, letting the council weigh the disclosed incentive.
qc alignment score: 0.62
role label: Engineer
toulmin claim: The engineer should give his advisory recommendation but must be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval, since council approval of the project may lead to his securing the design commission.
toulmin data: The engineer's compensation for the design work is a separate professional fee paid over and above his monthly retainer, and his advisory recommendation logically precedes and affects the likelihood of that commission.
toulmin qualifier: Unless the fee structure or surrounding circumstances create an incentive so strong that neutral judgment cannot reasonably be presumed.
toulmin rebuttal: This warrant would not apply if the recommendation and the commission decision were shown to be independent through disclosure and client consent, or if no separate fee incentive existed at all.
toulmin warrant: Rule 13 imposes a duty on an engineer in dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the client; this requires doubly careful study and recommendation where approval could lead to his own commission.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
addresses question: Implicit question 4: Does the practice of treating part-time municipal service...
addresses question: Counterfactual question 2: If the engineer had been a full-time salaried employee of...
aligns with conclusion: Analytical conclusion 3: The Board's characterization of the part-time city engine...
decides question: Implicit question 4: Does the practice of treating part-time municipal service...
involves obligation: City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty
board chosen option: Treat Role as Client Service and Pursue Commission
board resolution: The Board's characterization of the part-time city engineer's service as 'service to a client' rather than as an internal governmental function is significant: it frames the ethical analysis under Rule 17's multiple-employment provisions and Canon 15's compensation-from-multiple-parties concern, rather than under Canon 27's salaried-position prohibition. Had the engineer instead held a full-time salaried municipal position, the Board's reasoning suggests a different provision (Canon 27, addressing unfair competitive advantage from a salaried role) would likely govern, potentially yielding a different or more restrictive conclusion. The Board's silence on this distinction leaves open whether the 'not unethical' finding is contingent specifically on the engineer's status as an independent, p
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should the engineer treat his part-time municipal role as client service permitting him to seek the design commission, or hold himself to the stricter salaried-employee standard barring such outside commissions?
focus: The engineer must decide whether to treat his part-time municipal position as private client service, permitting pursuit of the supplemental commission, or to hold himself to the stricter standard applicable to salaried public employees.
intensity score: 0.55
option: 1. Treat Role as Client Service and Pursue Commission: Treat the part-time engagement as private client service, permitting pursuit of the supplemental commission under Rule 17 and Canon 15.
option: 2. Adopt Full-Time-Employee Standard and Forgo Commission: Voluntarily hold himself to the stricter Canon 27 standard, declining to pursue outside design work on projects he advises.
option: 3. Seek Council Clarification of Employment Status: Ask the council to formally clarify whether he is retained as an independent consultant or as an employee before deciding whether to pursue the commission.
qc alignment score: 0.6
role label: Engineer
toulmin claim: The engineer may treat the part-time position as client service and pursue the design commission, since he is retained as an independent consultant rather than as a salaried municipal employee.
toulmin data: The engineer is retained part-time and compensated by monthly retainer; the design commission is separately compensated at a normal professional fee rather than a salary.
toulmin qualifier: Provided the engineer's status remains that of an independent part-time consultant rather than a salaried municipal employee.
toulmin rebuttal: This warrant would not apply if the engineer's arrangement were reclassified as full-time salaried employment, which would trigger Canon 27's prohibition on competing for outside design work.
toulmin warrant: Canon 27 prohibits using a salaried position to compete unfairly with another engineer for outside work, while Rule 17 and Canon 15 govern multiple employment and compensation from multiple parties for consultants serving a client; a part-time consultant is governed by the latter, not the former.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Implicit question 3: Should the city be required to obtain independent third-p...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 103
question text: Should the city be required to obtain independent third-party review of plans and specifications prepared by its own part-time city engineer, rather than relying on his self-review or the city council's non-technical oversight?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Principle-tension question 2: Does Self-Review of Own Plans conflict with Undivided Loy...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does Self-Review of Own Plans conflict with Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity, given that the same engineer who advises the city and approves plans is also the one being paid to prepare those plans?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Theoretical question 1: From a deontological perspective, did the engineer fulfil...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
ethical framework: deontological
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did the engineer fulfill his duty of undivided loyalty to the city when he simultaneously held the advisory city engineer role and the paid role of project designer for the same client?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Theoretical question 2: From a consequentialist standpoint, does the fact that th...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
ethical framework: consequentialist
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, does the fact that the city ultimately received competent plans and specifications justify permitting the same engineer to both advise on and design the project, despite the structural incentive for biased advice?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Theoretical question 3: Did the engineer act with professional integrity when he...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
ethical framework: virtue_ethics
question number: 303
question text: Did the engineer act with professional integrity when he reviewed and approved plans and specifications that he himself had prepared for the city project, given the virtue of impartial self-scrutiny expected of a professional?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Counterfactual question 1: If the engineer had received no separate professional fee...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 401
question text: If the engineer had received no separate professional fee for preparing the plans and specifications beyond his monthly retainer, would the Board still have stressed the need for scrupulous care against his secondary interest as prospective project designer?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Counterfactual question 3: If the same engineer who prepared the plans and specifica...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 403
question text: If the same engineer who prepared the plans and specifications were also the one to give final approval on those same plans in his advisory capacity, without any independent check, would the Board's conclusion that the arrangement is not unethical still hold?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Rule 13 Binding Condition
type: State
type: RegulatoryApplicabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activates obligation: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
affects: City
affects: City Engineer
active period: While the engineer serves the city in a dual capacity as part-time consultant and prospective project designer
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: The applicability of Rule 13 transforms the general loyalty owed to the client into a concrete duty to avoid prejudicing advice to the city on the project whose approval may lead to the engineer securing a commission.
subject: The engineer's dual capacity engagement with the city
terminated by: End of the dual capacity arrangement with the city
text references: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration
triggering event: Engineer's retention by the city in a dual capacity
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:37:27.197128+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Regulatory Applicability State': The condition of Rule 13 being in force and binding for the engineer's conduct is the same concept as the existing RegulatoryApplicabilityState, a condition in which a code provision is in force for a party's conduct.
matched ontology class: RegulatoryApplicabilityState
matched ontology label: RegulatoryApplicabilityState
matches existing: true
source text: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: The engineer's dual capacity engagement with the city
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:37:27.197128+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Client Service Framing
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
is performed by: City Engineer
event role context: City Engineer, private practitioner
has agent: Professional Engineer
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Consultant-Client Relationship
intended outcome: Maintain a consultant-client relationship with the city consistent with his private practice
requires capability text: Understanding of professional engagement structures
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At the outset of the engagement
temporal sequence: 2
text references: The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: The engineer chooses to treat his part-time service to the community as service to a client rather than as salaried employment, which shapes how the Canons and Rules apply to the arrangement.
has time: At the outset of the engagement
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Objectivity in Advising City
type: Principle
type: ObjectivityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Board of Ethical Review
applied to: the engineer's advice to the city on the project under consideration
applied to: the engineer's study and recommendation of approval of a project for which the council looks to him for guidance
concrete expression: The Board, citing Rule 13, states the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city, since council approval of a project may lead to his securing the commission for it, and cautions that he should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The dual capacity requires the engineer to keep his advice to the city free from the self-interested pull of securing a commission, and to exercise heightened care when recommending approval; the Board finds no ground to believe improper conduct is present.
text references: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project. There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present, but we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance.
text references: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
text references: we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.93
match reasoning: Via class 'Objectivity Principle': The duty to avoid prejudicing advice because of the prospect of securing a commission is the objectivity value of judgment free from self-interest, matching the existing Objectivity Principle.
matched ontology class: ObjectivityPrinciple
matched ontology label: Objectivity Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project. There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present, but we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The Board, citing Rule 13, states the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city, since council approval of a project may lead to his securing the commission for it, and cautions that he should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Prospective Commission Incentive
type: State
type: ConflictOfInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activates obligation: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
affects: City
active period: While the project whose approval may lead to his commission is under consideration by the city council
confidence: 0.82
principle transformation: The prospective commission incentive transforms the general duty of faithful advice into the Rule 13 duty to be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of the project for which the council must look to the engineer for guidance.
subject: The engineer
terminated by: City council decision on the project
text references: an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance
text references: its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
triggering event: City council consideration of a project on which the engineer advises and for which he may secure the design commission
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:37:27.197128+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.85
match reasoning: Via class 'Conflict Of Interest State': The potential commission incentive is a self-interest condition bearing on the engineer's advisory judgment, which folds into the canonical ConflictOfInterestState per the reuse policy for self-interested advisory conditions. The board holds the engineer's capacity is dual but not divided, so the individual records a potential incentive the board cautions about, not an actual divided loyalty.
matched ontology class: ConflictOfInterestState
matched ontology label: Conflict Of Interest State
matches existing: true
source text: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project. There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present, but we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: The engineer
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:37:27.197128+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Principle-tension question 1: How should Objectivity in Advising City be balanced again...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 201
question text: How should Objectivity in Advising City be balanced against the engineer's Self-Interest in securing the Project Commission Retention when he advises the council on whether and how to pursue an engineering project?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Engineering Advisory Competence
type: Capability
type: EngineeringAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: City Engineer
case context: The city engineer's usual duties include advising the city council on engineering problems and offering recommendations on engineering project considerations, a competence he exercises as part of his part-time municipal service treated as service to a client.
confidence: 0.88
text references: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:39:06.618684+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.0
match reasoning: Case-specific individual grounding the Engineering Advisory Capability kind; no individual-level ontology match applies.
matches existing: false
source text: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The city engineer's usual duties include advising the city council on engineering problems and offering recommendations on engineering project considerations, a competence he exercises as part of his part-time municipal service treated as service to a client.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:39:06.618684+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Objectivity Maintenance
type: Capability
type: ObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: City Engineer
case context: The engineer's Rule 13 duty to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city presupposes his capacity to keep his judgment unbiased despite the prospect of securing the project commission, and the Board found no ground to believe improper conduct is present while cautioning him to be doubly careful.
confidence: 0.9
text references: There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present
text references: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:41:35.115808+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Via class 'Objectivity Maintenance Capability': The competence to keep advice unprejudiced and be doubly careful under self-interest pressure is exactly the canonical Objectivity Maintenance Capability; the synonym list folds Heightened Self-Review Diligence Capability into it.
matched ontology class: ObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
matched ontology label: Objectivity Maintenance Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project. There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The engineer's Rule 13 duty to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city presupposes his capacity to keep his judgment unbiased despite the prospect of securing the project commission, and the Board found no ground to believe improper conduct is present while cautioning him to be doubly careful.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:41:35.115808+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Client Consent to Dual Capacity
type: Principle
type: ConflictOfInterestDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Board of Ethical Review
applied to: the city's retention of the engineer in a dual capacity as advisor and potential project designer
concrete expression: The Board holds that Canon 15 is not a bar because there is only one interested party, the client, and that party has given its consent to the arrangement.
confidence: 0.86
interpretation: Where only one client is interested in the arrangement and that client has consented, the arrangement does not present a barred conflict of interest.
text references: Canon 15 is not a bar to this type of arrangement because there is only one interested party (client) and that party has given its consent.
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle': The Board's reasoning that client consent removes the bar to the dual-capacity arrangement is the client-consent waiver aspect that the synonym table folds into the existing Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle.
matched ontology class: ConflictOfInterestDisclosurePrinciple
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Canon 15 is not a bar to this type of arrangement because there is only one interested party (client) and that party has given its consent.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The Board holds that Canon 15 is not a bar because there is only one interested party, the client, and that party has given its consent to the arrangement.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
addresses question: Implicit question 1: Since the engineer approves plans for engineering process...
addresses question: Implicit question 3: Should the city be required to obtain independent third-p...
addresses question: Principle-tension question 2: Does Self-Review of Own Plans conflict with Undivided Loy...
addresses question: Theoretical question 3: Did the engineer act with professional integrity when he...
addresses question: Counterfactual question 3: If the same engineer who prepared the plans and specifica...
aligns with conclusion: Analytical conclusion 1: The Board's requirement of 'scrupulous care' does not res...
decides question: Implicit question 1: Since the engineer approves plans for engineering process...
board chosen option: Self-Approve Under Waived Review Right
board resolution: The Board's requirement of 'scrupulous care' does not resolve the structural problem that the engineer, in his advisory capacity, is tasked with approving plans and specifications that he himself prepared under the supplemental commission. This self-review function—Own Plan Approval performed by the same individual holding Own Plan Adequacy Review capability—lacks the external check that would normally validate an engineer's approval of another's work. The Board's conclusion that the arrangement is not inherently unethical presumes the engineer's personal discipline can substitute for institutional safeguards such as independent third-party review, but this presumption is not explicitly tested or justified in the reasoning. Regarding Q101: Yes, the dual role creates an inherent structural
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should the engineer approve his own plans and specifications in his advisory capacity, or require an independent third-party review before final approval?
focus: As advisory city engineer, the engineer must decide whether to personally approve the plans and specifications he himself prepared under the supplemental commission, or insist on an independent check.
intensity score: 0.72
option: 1. Self-Approve Under Waived Review Right: Review and approve his own plans in his advisory capacity, relying on the city's implicit waiver of independent review.
option: 2. Require Independent Third-Party Review: Request that the city retain a separate reviewing engineer to check the plans before final approval, despite the added cost.
option: 3. Disclose Self-Review Limits and Seek Ratification: Disclose the self-review structure explicitly to the council and obtain documented ratification before giving final approval.
qc alignment score: 0.68
role label: Engineer
toulmin claim: The engineer may pass on the adequacy of his own plans as city engineer, since the client holds the right of review by its own engineer and has evidently waived that right.
toulmin data: The engineer performs the advisory plan-approval function and also received the design commission for the same project; the city did not require independent review of his self-prepared plans.
toulmin qualifier: Provided the city's waiver is understood to be knowing and the engineer maintains rigorous technical competence in self-assessment.
toulmin rebuttal: This warrant would not apply if the city's waiver were uninformed as to the self-review risk, or if no mechanism existed to catch self-interested bias in the engineer's own approval of his own work.
toulmin warrant: A client's right to independent review of an engineer's plans may be waived by the client; where the city has obviously waived that right, self-review by the retained engineer is permitted as part of his advisory duty.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Fee Compensation
type: AutomaticEvent
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Project Commission Retention
confidence: 0.82
initiates text: Additional Compensation State
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Following each project commission retention by the city council
temporal sequence: 7
text references: In such cases, he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer.
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: When the engineer is retained for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer, per the terms of the arrangement.
has time: Following each project commission retention by the city council
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Loyalty in City Engineer Service
type: Principle
type: LoyaltyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: City Engineer
applied to: the additional retention by the city council for preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
applied to: the part-time city engineer service to the small community
concrete expression: The engineer treats his part-time service to the small community as service to a client, extending the client-service posture of his private practice to his municipal duties of advising the city council, offering recommendations, and approving plans.
confidence: 0.82
interpretation: In these facts the loyalty value means the engineer regards the community as a client of his practice, so his advisory, recommendation, and plan-approval duties for the city are owed the same faithful client service as work for any private client, including when he is additionally retained and compensated on a normal professional fee basis for plans and specifications.
text references: The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:37:57.713202+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Loyalty Principle'
matched ontology class: LoyaltyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Loyalty Principle
matches existing: true
source text: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer. The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The engineer treats his part-time service to the small community as service to a client, extending the client-service posture of his private practice to his municipal duties of advising the city council, offering recommendations, and approving plans.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:37:57.713202+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Principle-tension question 3: Is Client Consent to Dual Capacity sufficient to resolve...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 203
question text: Is Client Consent to Dual Capacity sufficient to resolve the tension between Loyalty in City Engineer Service and Objectivity in Advising City, or does the city's consent fail to address the structural conflict of interest inherent in the dual role?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Self-Interest Risk Arising
type: AutomaticEvent
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
confidence: 0.85
initiates text: Potential Self-Interest State
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Whenever a project on which the engineer advises could result in a commission for him
temporal sequence: 4
text references: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Because the engineer advises the city council on projects whose approval may lead to his securing a design commission, a condition of potential self-interest in his advice arises whenever such a project is under consideration.
has time: Whenever a project on which the engineer advises could result in a commission for him
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Advisory Service Duty
type: Obligation
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
derived from principle: Loyalty in City Engineer Service
obligated party: City Engineer
requires capability: City Engineer Engineering Advisory Competence
requires capability: City Engineer Own Plan Adequacy Review
requires capability: City Engineer Plan Approval Competence
case context: The retainer establishes the usual duties of the position, advisory service to the city council, recommendations on project considerations, and approval of plans for engineering processes and works.
compliance status: unclear
confidence: 0.85
obligation statement: The city engineer must advise the city council on engineering problems, offer recommendations on engineering project considerations, and approve plans for engineering processes and works for the community.
temporal scope: While serving under the part-time retainer as city engineer
text references: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:38:35.077823+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.92
match reasoning: Via class 'Faithful Agent Obligation': The duty of the part-time city engineer to serve the community as he would a client is the same concept as the existing Faithful Agent Obligation, the duty to act as a faithful agent or trustee of an employer or client under NSPE II.4.
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentObligation
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The city engineer must advise the city council on engineering problems, offer recommendations on engineering project considerations, and approve plans for engineering processes and works for the community.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:38:35.077823+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Project Design Engineer
type: Role
type: DesignEngineerRole
type: ProviderClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
has client: City Engineer Municipal Engineer
case involvement: May be retained by the city council, in addition to general advisory services, for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, in which case he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer. The case states this engagement as conditional, not standing.
confidence: 0.85
license: Professional Engineer
other attribute: compensation: compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer
other attribute: engagement_modality: may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications, a conditional additional engagement, not a standing duty
text references: he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer
text references: the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:36:18.439490+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Design Engineer Role'
matched ontology class: DesignEngineerRole
matched ontology label: Design Engineer Role
matches existing: true
source text: In addition to general advisory services to the city, the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project. In such cases, he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: license
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: May be retained by the city council, in addition to general advisory services, for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, in which case he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer. The case states this engagement as conditional, not standing.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:36:18.439490+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Independent Review Waiver
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
is performed by: City
event role context: client, through the city council
foreseen unintended effects: The engineer passes on the adequacy of his own plans
has agent: City
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Independent Review Waived
intended outcome: Rely on its retained city engineer for plan review rather than engaging a separate reviewing engineer
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Ongoing, inferred from the arrangement as it operates
temporal sequence: 9
text references: The client has such a right of review by its own engineer, but it may waive its right, as it has obviously done in this case.
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: The city implicitly waives its right to have the engineer's plans reviewed by another engineer employed or retained by the client, relying instead on the same engineer in his city engineer capacity.
has time: Ongoing, inferred from the arrangement as it operates
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Implicit question 1: Since the engineer approves plans for engineering process...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 101
question text: Since the engineer approves plans for engineering processes and works as part of his advisory duties, does this create an inherent problem when he later approves or reviews his own project designs prepared under the supplemental commission?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Implicit question 4: Does the practice of treating part-time municipal service...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 104
question text: Does the practice of treating part-time municipal service 'as service to a client' rather than as a public duty change the ethical obligations the engineer owes to the city council and the public compared to a full-time municipal employee?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Counterfactual question 2: If the engineer had been a full-time salaried employee of...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 402
question text: If the engineer had been a full-time salaried employee of the city rather than an independent practitioner treating the city as a client, would the Board still conclude there is no violation, given Canon 27's prohibition on using a salaried position to compete unfairly with another engineer?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Loyalty Division Prohibition
type: Constraint
type: ConflictOfInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: City Engineer
applicability condition: While the engineer serves the city as his single client in a dual capacity, retained part-time as city engineer and preparing plans for city projects, with the city having consented and waived its right to independent review by another engineer.
case context: The Board holds that because the engineer has only one client, which has consented to the arrangement and waived its right of independent review, he is acting in a dual capacity but not a divided one, so the prohibition on divided loyalties bounds his conduct without being breached in this case.
confidence: 0.88
constraint statement: The city engineer must not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his client, the city, while serving it in a dual capacity as part-time consultant and as the engineer whose own plans come before the city.
severity: high
source: Axiomatic conflict of interest principle acknowledged by the Board under the Canons and Rules
temporal scope: For the duration of the engineer's dual capacity engagement with the city
text references: Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one.
text references: it is axiomatic that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:41:24.864761+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'ConflictOfInterestAvoidanceConstraint'
matched ontology class: ConflictOfInterestAvoidanceConstraint
matched ontology label: ConflictOfInterestAvoidanceConstraint
matches existing: true
source text: We have previously noted that "although neither the Canons nor the Rules refer specifically to a 'conflict of interest,' it is axiomatic that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client." ... Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one.
synthesis literal: applicabilityCondition
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The city engineer must not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his client, the city, while serving it in a dual capacity as part-time consultant and as the engineer whose own plans come before the city.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:41:24.864761+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Dual Capacity Arising
type: AutomaticEvent
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Project Commission Acceptance
confidence: 0.9
initiates text: Dual Capacity State
initiates text: Self-Review Situation
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Upon the engineer's acceptance of a project commission while serving as retained city engineer
temporal sequence: 8
text references: There is still left for decision, however, the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer.
text references: Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one.
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Once the engineer, already serving as part-time city engineer, is additionally retained to prepare plans and specifications for a city project, a dual capacity situation comes into being in which he passes on the adequacy of his own plans in his city engineer role.
has time: Upon the engineer's acceptance of a project commission while serving as retained city engineer
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Case 103 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 7
event count: 3
total elements: 10
synthesis literal: hasTimepoints
synthesis literal: temporalConsistency
has part: Advisory Recommendation
has part: Client Service Framing
has part: Dual Capacity Arising
has part: Fee Compensation
has part: Independent Review Waiver
has part: Own Plan Approval
has part: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
has part: Project Commission Acceptance
has part: Project Commission Retention
has part: Self-Interest Risk Arising
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty
type: Obligation
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
derived from principle: Loyalty in City Engineer Service
obligated party: City Engineer
requires capability: City Engineer Engineering Advisory Competence
case context: A small community retains the professional engineer on a part-time basis as city engineer while he maintains a full-time private practice, and he treats the municipal service as client service.
compliance status: met
confidence: 0.88
obligation statement: The city engineer must serve the small community faithfully as he would a client of his private practice, treating his part-time municipal service as service to a client.
temporal scope: For the duration of the part-time retainer as city engineer
text references: treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:38:35.077823+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.92
match reasoning: Via class 'Faithful Agent Obligation': The duty of the part-time city engineer to serve the community as he would a client is the same concept as the existing Faithful Agent Obligation, the duty to act as a faithful agent or trustee of an employer or client under NSPE II.4.
matched ontology class: FaithfulAgentObligation
matched ontology label: Faithful Agent Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The city engineer must serve the small community faithfully as he would a client of his private practice, treating his part-time municipal service as service to a client.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:38:35.077823+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
addresses question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
addresses question: Implicit question 2: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental d...
addresses question: Principle-tension question 1: How should Objectivity in Advising City be balanced again...
addresses question: Theoretical question 1: From a deontological perspective, did the engineer fulfil...
addresses question: Theoretical question 2: From a consequentialist standpoint, does the fact that th...
addresses question: Counterfactual question 2: If the engineer had been a full-time salaried employee of...
aligns with conclusion: Board conclusion 1: It is not unethical for an engineer retained by a communi...
decides question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
involves constraint: City Engineer Loyalty Division Prohibition
involves obligation: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
board chosen option: Accept Dual Role With Heightened Vigilance
board resolution: It is not unethical for an engineer retained by a community on a part-time basis as a city engineer to prepare plans and specifications for a project for the same community, but in so acting the engineer must be scrupulously careful that his advice is not influenced by his secondary interest as the engineer likely to be retained for the design of the project. The Board's admonition to guard against influence from 'secondary interest' implicitly acknowledges a financial incentive structure: the engineer's advisory recommendations about whether and how a project should proceed directly affect the likelihood that he will receive a supplemental, separately compensated design commission. This creates a conflict between the Objectivity in Advising City principle and the Prospective Commission In
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should the engineer accept the supplemental commission to design the project he advises on, or decline it to preserve the independence of his advisory role?
focus: The engineer, retained part-time as city engineer, must decide whether to accept a supplemental commission to design the very project he advises the council on, given the risk that the prospective fee could bias his advisory judgment.
intensity score: 0.75
option: 1. Accept Dual Role With Heightened Vigilance: Accept the supplemental design commission while remaining the advisory city engineer, applying scrupulous care to keep advisory recommendations uninfluenced by the prospective fee.
option: 2. Decline the Design Commission: Decline the supplemental commission to design the project, preserving the independence of the advisory role and referring the design work to another engineer.
option: 3. Accept Only With Mandated Independent Review: Accept the commission conditioned on the city engaging an independent third-party engineer to review the resulting plans before approval.
qc alignment score: 0.7
role label: Engineer
toulmin claim: The engineer may accept the supplemental design commission while retaining the advisory role, provided he exercises scrupulous care to prevent his prospective fee from influencing his advisory recommendation.
toulmin data: The engineer, retained part-time as city engineer, advised the council on the project and was subsequently retained to prepare its plans and specifications for a separate professional fee paid over and above his monthly retainer.
toulmin qualifier: Provided the engineer exercises scrupulous care against influence from his secondary interest as the likely designer of the project.
toulmin rebuttal: This warrant would not apply if the city lacked any independent means to review the engineer's plans or if the separate fee created a demonstrable incentive to favor project approval, undermining the presumption of undivided loyalty.
toulmin warrant: An engineer serving a single client in a dual capacity does not thereby divide his loyalty, since both roles serve the same client's interest; however, because council approval of a project may lead to his securing the design commission, he must avoid prejudicing his advice, being doubly careful in studying and recommending approval.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Part Time City Engineer Dual Practice
type: State
type: DualCapacityState
type: NamedIndividual
affects: City
affects: City Engineer
active period: For the duration of the part-time retention as city engineer while in full-time private practice
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: The condition of serving one public client in two compensated capacities makes the faithful agent relationship to the city the concrete frame for evaluating the engineer's advisory, approval, and design duties.
subject: The professional engineer serving as part-time city engineer
terminated by: End of the part-time city engineer retention or of the private practice
text references: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer. The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
triggering event: The community retains the professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
urgency level: low
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:36:13.834446+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Dual Capacity State': The synonym table folds Dual Role Service State, Single Client Dual Capacity State, and Supplemental Engagement State into the canonical DualCapacityState. This condition, one engineer serving the same city as advisor and plan approver while also available for supplemental design retention alongside private practice, is exactly that dual capacity concept.
matched ontology class: DualCapacityState
matched ontology label: DualCapacityState
matches existing: true
source text: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer. The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: The professional engineer serving as part-time city engineer
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:36:13.834446+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Implicit question 2: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental d...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
extends question: Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
question number: 102
question text: Does the prospect of receiving a lucrative supplemental design commission create a financial incentive for the engineer to recommend that a project proceed, even if his objective professional judgment might otherwise counsel against it?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Project Commission Acceptance
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
guided by principle: Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
is performed by: City Engineer
event role context: City Engineer, private practitioner
foreseen unintended effects: Approval of a project by the council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
foreseen unintended effects: Passing engineering judgment on his own plans in his city engineer capacity
guided by principle text: Undivided Loyalty
has agent: Professional Engineer
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Dual Capacity
initiates text: Self-Interest in Project Approval
intended outcome: Earn professional fees for design work beyond the monthly retainer
requires capability text: Design of plans and specifications
requires capability text: Self-assessment of own work
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Recurring, whenever the city council retains him for a specific project
temporal sequence: 6
text references: he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer
text references: the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: The engineer accepts project design commissions from the same city he serves as reviewing and approving city engineer, placing himself in the position of passing on the adequacy of his own plans.
has time: Recurring, whenever the city council retains him for a specific project
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Advisory Recommendation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
fulfills obligation: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
guided by principle: Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
is performed by: City Engineer
event role context: City Engineer, private practitioner
foreseen unintended effects: Approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
fulfills obligation text: Duty to Avoid Prejudicing Advice (Rule 13)
guided by principle text: Undivided Loyalty
has agent: Professional Engineer
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide sound engineering guidance to the city council on projects under consideration
requires capability text: Engineering advisory judgment
requires capability text: Objective project evaluation
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Continuing, at each recommendation to the city council
temporal sequence: 3
text references: an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance
text references: the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: In his ongoing city engineer capacity, the engineer advises the city council and recommends approval of projects, including projects for which the council may then retain him for design, requiring him to avoid prejudicing his advice for personal gain.
has time: Continuing, at each recommendation to the city council
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Board of Ethical Review
type: DeliberativeBody
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Board of Ethical Review
comment: Case-scoped Agent individual materialized at commit for Board-pattern invokedBy/citedByAgent actor literals. Not extracted from the case text; excluded from the actor-resolution candidate pools, so it is never offered to extraction prompts and never matches as a reliance actor (used_by/availableTo).
definition: The deliberative body whose analysis this case record captures. Its agency is authorship of the deliberation (citing precedents, invoking principles), not participation in the case events.
was attributed to: Case 103 Edge Materialization (Board-pattern actor resolution)

Canon 27
type: CodeProvisionReference
type: NamedIndividual
applies to: Case No. 60-5
applies to: Case No. 62-7
applies to: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
applies to: City Engineer Advisory Service Duty
applies to: City Engineer Design Competence
applies to: City Engineer Loyalty Division Prohibition
applies to: City Engineer Municipal Engineer
applies to: City Engineer Plan Approval Competence
applies to: City Engineer Project Design Engineer
applies to: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
applies to: Part Time City Engineer Dual Practice
applies to: Project Commission Acceptance
applies to: Prospective Commission Incentive
applies to: Self-Interest Risk Arising
relevant excerpt: [discussion] Canon 27 is not an impediment because it refers to a "salaried" position, whereas in this situation the engineer is retained on a part-time basis by the city as a consultant rather than as a salaried employee
comment: He will not use the advantages of a salaried position to compete unfairly with another engineer." Rules of Professional Conduct
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
type: Principle
type: LoyaltyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Board of Ethical Review
applied to: the part-time city engineer arrangement in which the engineer both advises the city and may design city projects
concrete expression: The Board applies the axiom that a professional may not divide loyalties from those of the client, and finds that because the engineer serves only one client, the city, his capacity is dual but not divided.
confidence: 0.93
interpretation: With only one client, the engineer is not subject to pressures to temper service to one client to satisfy another, so the loyalty value is satisfied and the arrangement is a dual capacity, not a divided one.
text references: The distinguishing fact in the instant case is that the engineer has only one client, and he is, therefore, not subject to the same pressures to temper his service to one client in order to satisfy the other.
text references: a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client
text references: the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Via class 'Loyalty Principle': The Board's axiom of undivided loyalty to the client is exactly the faithful-agent loyalty value expressed by the existing Loyalty Principle class.
matched ontology class: LoyaltyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Loyalty Principle
matches existing: true
source text: We have previously noted that "although neither the Canons nor the Rules refer specifically to a 'conflict of interest,' it is axiomatic that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client."
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The Board applies the axiom that a professional may not divide loyalties from those of the client, and finds that because the engineer serves only one client, the city, his capacity is dual but not divided.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:40:23.075046+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Own Plan Approval
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
guided by principle: Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
is performed by: City Engineer
event role context: City Engineer, private practitioner
foreseen unintended effects: Judging the adequacy of his own work without independent review
guided by principle text: Undivided Loyalty
has agent: Professional Engineer
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Self-Review Condition
intended outcome: Fulfill his city engineer duty of approving plans for engineering processes and works
requires capability text: Impartial self-assessment
requires capability text: Plan review and approval competence
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Recurring, when project plans he prepared come before him for approval
temporal sequence: 10
text references: There is still left for decision, however, the practical question of the engineer passing on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer.
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: In his capacity as city engineer, the engineer passes on the adequacy of the plans he himself prepared as a retained consultant for city projects.
has time: Recurring, when project plans he prepared come before him for approval
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Rule 17
type: CodeProvisionReference
type: NamedIndividual
applies to: Board Precedent Distinction
applies to: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
applies to: City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty
applies to: City Engineer Loyalty Division Prohibition
applies to: City Engineer Municipal Engineer
applies to: City Engineer Objectivity Maintenance
applies to: City Engineer Project Design Engineer
applies to: Client Consent to Dual Capacity
applies to: Client Service Framing
applies to: Dual Capacity Arising
applies to: Loyalty in City Engineer Service
applies to: Part-Time Retention Acceptance
applies to: Part Time City Engineer Dual Practice
applies to: Supplemental Plans Retention Condition
applies to: Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
relevant excerpt: [discussion] Rule 17 deals only with situations in which the engineer is employed by more than one party. Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his
comment: An engineer in private practice may be employed by more than one party when the interests and time schedules of the several parties do not conflict.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: City Municipal Client
definition: Participant in this case: performs Independent Review Waiver and Project Commission Retention; is affected by Part Time City Engineer Dual Practice, Prospective Commission Incentive and Rule 13 Binding Condition and 1 more; is the responsible agent in Independent Review Waiver → Own Plan Approval and Project Commission Retention → Fee Compensation. Derived from the committed case graph.
was attributed to: Case 103 Edge Materialization (participant scaffold)

Canon 15
type: CodeProvisionReference
type: NamedIndividual
applies to: Case No. 60-5
applies to: Case No. 62-7
applies to: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
applies to: City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty
applies to: City Engineer Loyalty Division Prohibition
applies to: City Engineer Municipal Engineer
applies to: City Engineer Objectivity Maintenance
applies to: City Engineer Own Plan Adequacy Review
applies to: City Engineer Project Design Engineer
applies to: Client Consent to Dual Capacity
applies to: Dual Capacity Arising
applies to: Fee Compensation
applies to: Own Plan Approval
applies to: Part Time City Engineer Dual Practice
applies to: Project Commission Acceptance
applies to: Project Commission Retention
applies to: Prospective Commission Incentive
relevant excerpt: [discussion] Under these circumstances, the engineer is acting in a dual capacity, but not a divided one. Canon 15 is not a bar to this type of arrangement because there is only one interested party (client) and that party has given its consent.
comment: He will not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one interested party for the same service, or for services pertaining to the same work, without the consent of all interested parties.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Project Commission Retention
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Part Time City Engineer Dual Practice
is performed by: City
event role context: client
foreseen unintended effects: The engineer would pass on the adequacy of his own plans in his capacity as city engineer
has agent: City Council
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Dual Capacity
intended outcome: Obtain plans and specifications for city projects from the engineer already familiar with the city's needs
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Recurring, after the initial part-time retention, when specific city projects arise
temporal sequence: 5
text references: the professional engineer may be retained by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project. In such cases, he is compensated on a normal professional fee basis over and above his monthly retainer.
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: The city council additionally retains the same engineer for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project, compensating him on a normal professional fee basis above his monthly retainer.
has time: Recurring, after the initial part-time retention, when specific city projects arise
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Municipal Engineer
type: Role
type: MunicipalEngineerRole
type: ProviderClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Loyalty in City Engineer Service
adheres to principle: Objectivity in Advising City
adheres to principle: Self-Review of Own Plans
adheres to principle: Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
has obligation: City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
has obligation: City Engineer Advisory Service Duty
has obligation: City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty
case involvement: Serves the small community as part-time city engineer while in full-time private practice, treating the service as service to a client. Duties usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations, and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
confidence: 0.95
license: Professional Engineer
other attribute: client_framing: treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client
other attribute: engagement_basis: part-time retainer with the community, monthly retainer
other attribute: other_practice: engaged in full-time private practice
other attribute: rel:advises -> City Council
text references: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer.
text references: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: facts
discovered in step: 1
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:36:18.439490+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Municipal Engineer Role'
matched ontology class: MunicipalEngineerRole
matched ontology label: Municipal Engineer Role
matches existing: true
source text: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer. The professional engineer holding this position is engaged in full-time private practice and treats his part-time service to the community as service to a client.
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: license
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Serves the small community as part-time city engineer while in full-time private practice, treating the service as service to a client. Duties usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations, and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:36:18.439490+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Board question 1: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general...
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Is a professional engineer retained by a city for general advisory services in violation of the Canons of Ethics by also preparing plans and specifications on projects for the city in which he participated and advised the city council?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty
type: Obligation
type: ObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
derived from principle: Objectivity in Advising City
derived from principle: Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
obligated party: City Engineer
requires capability: City Engineer Objectivity Maintenance
case context: The Board holds Rule 13 binding because the engineer serves the city both as advisory city engineer and as prospective design engineer for the project. It finds no ground to believe improper conduct is present, and adds cautionary guidance that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project on which the council looks to him for guidance.
compliance status: met
confidence: 0.92
obligation statement: Because of his dual capacity, the city engineer must avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration, since approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project.
temporal scope: While the engineer advises the city on the project under consideration and stands to secure the design commission if it is approved
text references: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project.
text references: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project. There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present, but we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance.
text references: we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council must look to him for guidance
discovered in case: 103
discovered in section: discussion
discovered in step: 2
first discovered at: 2026-07-05T07:40:49.758642+00:00
first discovered in case: 103
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Objectivity Obligation': The Board's Rule 13 duty to avoid prejudicing advice to the city in a dual capacity is the dual-capacity bias-avoidance duty, which the reuse policy folds into the canonical Objectivity Obligation, a duty to keep professional advice objective and free of self-interested bias.
matched ontology class: ObjectivityObligation
matched ontology label: Objectivity Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Rule 13 is binding in this case and the engineer has a duty because of his dual capacity to avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration because its approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project. There is no ground to believe that such improper conduct is present, but we would caution that an engineer in these circumstances should be doubly careful in studying and recommending approval of a project for which the city council
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Because of his dual capacity, the city engineer must avoid prejudicing his advice to the city on the project under consideration, since approval by the city council may lead to his securing a commission for that project.
generated at time: 2026-07-05T07:40:49.758642+00:00
was attributed to: Case 103 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

Part-Time Retention Acceptance
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
guided by principle: Undivided Loyalty in Dual Capacity
is performed by: City Engineer
event role context: City Engineer, private practitioner
foreseen unintended effects: Potential future situations of passing on his own work if retained for city projects
guided by principle text: Undivided Loyalty
has agent: Professional Engineer
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Part-Time City Engineer Retention
intended outcome: Provide ongoing engineering advisory and approval services to the community alongside his private practice
requires capability text: Engineering advisory judgment
requires capability text: Plan review and approval competence
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Outset of the engagement, initial arrangement
temporal sequence: 1
text references: A small community retains a professional engineer on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer.
text references: The duties for the city usually include advising the city council on engineering problems, offering recommendations on engineering project considerations and approving plans for engineering processes and works.
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: The professional engineer, engaged in full-time private practice, accepts part-time retention by the small community to serve as city engineer, advising the council, offering recommendations, and approving plans.
has time: Outset of the engagement, initial arrangement
was attributed to: claude-fable-5
was generated by: ProEthica Case 103 Extraction

City Engineer
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: City Engineer Municipal Engineer
has role: City Engineer Project Design Engineer
definition: Participant in this case: performs Advisory Recommendation, Client Service Framing and Own Plan Approval and 2 more; bears City Engineer Advice Objectivity Duty, City Engineer Advisory Service Duty and City Engineer Faithful Client Service Duty; possesses City Engineer Design Competence, City Engineer Engineering Advisory Competence and City Engineer Objectivity Maintenance and 2 more; is constrained by City Engineer Loyalty Division Prohibition; is affected by Part Time City Engineer Dual Practice, Rule 13 Binding Condition and Supplemental Plans Retention Condition; is the responsible agent in Advisory Recommendation → Self-Interest Risk Arising, Dual Capacity Arising → Self-Interest Risk Arising and Independent Review Waiver → Own Plan Approval and 2 more. Derived from the committed case graph.
was attributed to: Case 103 Edge Materialization (participant scaffold)