ProEthica Case 107 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.278153
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Forensic Engagement
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer / Forensic Expert
foreseen unintended effects: Assumption of ethical obligations to be truthful regardless of outcome for client
foreseen unintended effects: Potential conflict between client advocacy and objective engineering conclusions
fulfills obligation text: Acceptance of duty to provide honest and objective forensic engineering services
fulfills obligation text: Willingness to serve in a professional capacity requiring specialized competence
guided by principle text: Competent performance of professional services
guided by principle text: Honesty and truthfulness in professional reports
guided by principle text: Professional integrity
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Provide professional forensic engineering services to Attorney X in support of litigation on behalf of an injured client
requires capability text: Familiarity with litigation support context
requires capability text: Forensic engineering investigation skills
requires capability text: Mechanical failure analysis expertise
requires capability text: Technical report writing
temporal marker: At the outset, before investigation begins
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney X to perform forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report on a mechanical product failure case involving serious injuries. This commitment establishes Engineer A's professional obligations to perform the work with honesty and integrity.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Accept Forensic Engagement (Action 1) → Report Successfully Submitted (Event 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A accepts retention by Attorney X to perform forensic engineering investigation and prepare [a report], culminating in the written forensic report with conclusions being received by Attorney X
cause: Accept Forensic Engagement (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A accepting the engagement, no forensic report would have been submitted to Attorney X; the legal process would have lacked expert engineering conclusions
effect: Report Successfully Submitted (Event 1)
necessary factors: Completion of the forensic investigation (Action 2)
necessary factors: Engineer A's voluntary acceptance of the forensic engagement
necessary factors: Preparation and submission of the written report (Action 3)
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Acceptance of engagement + completion of investigation + submission of report together constitute a sufficient set to produce the submitted report event
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Attorney X Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
type: AttorneyClientRetainingForensicExpert
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': "Plaintiff's attorney", 'engagement_status': 'Active settlement negotiations', 'report_receipt': "Received Engineer A's written report prior to settlement conclusion"}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer A to conduct a forensic investigation and prepare a written report regarding a mechanical product failure causing injuries to Attorney X's client; currently engaged in settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney at the time Engineer A discovers the data inaccuracy.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:31:45.103093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:31:45.103093+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'negotiating_with', 'target': "Defendant's Attorney"}
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Injured Client (plaintiff)'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discovering Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.278614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Attorney X Litigation Client
type: AttorneyClientDirectingConfidentiality
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Retaining litigation attorney', 'engagement_status': 'Active settlement negotiations at time of error discovery'}
caseinvolvement: Attorney representing Engineer A in civil litigation and/or settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney; recipient of Engineer A's forensic report; engaged in active negotiations that may or may not result in settlement at the time Engineer A discovered data inaccuracies; the party whom Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to immediately notify upon discovering report errors.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial', 'target': 'Defendant Attorney'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Attorney Client Directing Confidentiality
sourcetext: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.282238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Attorney X Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Oversight Capability
type: RetainingAttorneyExpertWitnessLicensureVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Attorney X, as the retaining attorney, possessed the capability to engage Engineer A as a forensic expert and to receive notification from Engineer A of discovered data inaccuracies in the submitted report — including the responsibility to make strategic litigation and settlement decisions in response to Engineer A's correction notification.
casecontext: Attorney X retained Engineer A as a forensic expert in civil litigation involving a mechanical product failure, and was in active settlement negotiations when Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.72
demonstratedthrough: Attorney X's retention of Engineer A to conduct the forensic investigation and prepare the written report, and Attorney X's role as the recipient of Engineer A's professional obligations regarding report accuracy.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Attorney X
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.288828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

BER Case 95-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: One such case was NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5
textreferences: As with BER Case 95-5, under the current facts, once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate...
textreferences: One such case was NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5
textreferences: While the facts in BER Case 95-5 are somewhat different than the present case, the Board of Ethical Review believes that BER Case 95-5 is instructive regarding the expectations when a professional engineer serves as an engineering expert
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Cited as directly instructive precedent establishing the ethical expectations for professional engineers serving as engineering experts, particularly regarding selective use of data and the duty of completeness and impartiality in forensic expert reports; used by the Board to ground its analysis of Engineer A's obligation to disclose discovered inaccuracies to retaining counsel
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.280942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Case 107 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 7
event count: 6
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Forensic Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

CausalLink_Conduct Forensic Investigation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

CausalLink_Decline to Consult Available W
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

CausalLink_Disclose Data Inaccuracy to At
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

CausalLink_Exclude Pile Driving Records f
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

CausalLink_Omit Dynamic Test Equipment Fa
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

CausalLink_Submit Report to Attorney
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 302
answers question4: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board explicitly concluded that Engineer A bore an affirmative obligation to immediately disclose the discovered data inaccuracy to Attorney X, particularly given that Attorney X was actively relying on the erroneous forensic report during ongoing settlement negotiations. The Board's language — 'affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise' — constitutes a formal determination that failure to do so would constitute an ethical violation of truthfulness, error acknowledgment, and faithful agent duties under the NSPE Code.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X, the scope of that obligation is not exhausted by disclosure to the retaining attorney alone. Because the erroneous report was already circulating as a functional instrument in active settlement negotiations — negotiations that could produce a binding resolution affecting the injured party, the defendant, and potentially the public — Engineer A's truthfulness and public welfare obligations extend, at minimum, to ensuring that the corrected analysis reaches every decision-maker whose reliance on the original report could produce a materially unjust outcome. If Attorney X declines to act on the corrected findings, Engineer A's obligations do not terminate at the boundary of the attorney-client relationship. The adversarial context non-exemption principle confirms that the adversarial structure of litigation does not convert Engineer A into an advocate whose duty of accuracy is owed only to the retaining party. Accordingly, Engineer A must be prepared to escalate disclosure — including, if necessary, to the court or opposing counsel — if Attorney X suppresses or ignores the correction, because allowing an inaccurate forensic report to remain the operative technical basis for a settlement is functionally equivalent to making a material misrepresentation of fact to the legal process itself.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's emphasis on the critical importance of the timing — that Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations — implicitly recognizes that temporal position carries independent ethical weight, but the Board did not fully articulate why. The pre-settlement discovery window is ethically distinct from a post-settlement discovery in the following respect: before settlement is concluded, disclosure of the corrected findings preserves the possibility that the legal process will reach a result grounded in accurate technical facts. After settlement is concluded, that corrective opportunity is foreclosed, and the harm — whether to the injured party who may have accepted an inadequate recovery, or to the defendant who may have paid an inflated settlement — becomes irreversible without further legal proceedings. This asymmetry means that Engineer A's obligation during the pre-settlement window is not merely urgent in a practical sense but is categorically more demanding in an ethical sense: it is the last moment at which Engineer A's professional action can prevent, rather than merely remediate, the harm caused by the inaccurate report. The temporal urgency constraint is therefore not simply a procedural consideration but a substantive ethical amplifier that increases the weight of the disclosure obligation relative to any competing considerations, including the faithful agent obligation toward Attorney X.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions address Engineer A's disclosure obligation but leave unexamined a logically prior question: whether Engineer A's original investigative methodology was itself deficient in a manner that constitutes a separate and independent ethical violation. If the data inaccuracy resulted from Engineer A's failure to apply appropriate professional diligence during the investigation — for example, by relying on unverified sources, failing to cross-check critical inputs, or omitting standard quality-control procedures — then the ethical analysis cannot be confined to the post-discovery disclosure obligation. The intellectual honesty obligation and the objectivity and truthfulness constraint both apply prospectively to the conduct of the investigation, not merely retrospectively to the correction of its outputs. A finding that Engineer A's methodology was deficient would mean that Engineer A violated the Code at the moment of submitting the original report, not only at the moment of discovering the error and failing to disclose it. The Board's silence on this point may reflect the absence of facts establishing methodological deficiency, but the analytical framework should make explicit that the disclosure obligation and the investigative competence obligation are distinct, that both are enforceable under the Code, and that satisfying the former does not retroactively cure a violation of the latter.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 304
answers question4: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's framework implicitly resolves the tension between the faithful agent obligation and the truthfulness obligation in favor of truthfulness, but it does so without articulating the limiting principle that governs the faithful agent role in forensic expert contexts. That limiting principle is this: the faithful agent obligation is a role-specific duty that operates within the boundaries set by the Code's overarching provisions, and it cannot be invoked to justify any action — or inaction — that would require Engineer A to make, or allow to persist, a material misrepresentation of fact. Attorney X retained Engineer A not as an advocate but as a forensic expert whose value to the litigation derives precisely from the reliability and accuracy of the technical analysis. An engineer who suppresses a known data inaccuracy to preserve a client's negotiating position is not acting as a faithful agent in any professionally cognizable sense; the engineer is acting as an advocate, which is a role the Code does not authorize and which the adversarial context non-exemption principle expressly forecloses. The faithful agent obligation, properly understood, requires Engineer A to serve Attorney X's legitimate professional interests — which include receiving accurate technical information necessary to make informed litigation decisions — not Attorney X's short-term tactical interests in maintaining a favorable but inaccurate evidentiary posture. Disclosure of the corrected findings is therefore not a breach of the faithful agent duty but its fulfillment.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's reasoning implicitly rejects the argument that the potential harm to Attorney X's client from a weakened settlement position could outweigh the obligation to disclose the data inaccuracy, but the analytical basis for that rejection deserves explicit articulation. The consequentialist calculus here does not favor suppression for two independent reasons. First, the harm to the injured party from a settlement based on inaccurate technical data is not merely the risk of an inadequate recovery; it is the harm of having the legal process produce an outcome that does not correspond to the actual facts of the case — a systemic harm that undermines the integrity of civil dispute resolution as a social institution. Second, the harm to the defendant from being compelled to negotiate a settlement on the basis of a forensic report that Engineer A knows to be inaccurate is a concrete and identifiable injury that the Code's non-deception constraint is designed to prevent. When both parties to a negotiation are relying on technical findings that the expert knows to be wrong, the settlement process is not functioning as a legitimate mechanism for resolving the dispute; it is functioning as a mechanism for laundering an error into a binding legal outcome. The consequentialist case for disclosure is therefore not merely that honesty produces better outcomes in the aggregate, but that the specific consequences of suppression in this case — harm to the defendant, potential under-recovery by the injured party, and corruption of the legal process — are all independently sufficient to require disclosure.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board clarified the interpretive basis for the urgency of disclosure, explicitly identifying the active settlement negotiation context as the factor that made the error correction 'critically important.' This constitutes an interpretive conclusion about why the temporal dimension of the obligation was heightened — the report was being actively relied upon in real-time negotiations, amplifying the ethical duty to disclose immediately.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the data inaccuracy does not, at the initial stage, extend automatically to the court, the opposing party, or the public. The primary and immediate duty runs to Attorney X as the retaining attorney, who is the appropriate professional intermediary capable of determining how the corrected findings must be handled within the legal process. However, this limitation is conditional: if Attorney X refuses to act on the corrected information or instructs Engineer A to suppress it, Engineer A's obligations escalate beyond the attorney-client channel. At that point, the erroneous report's continued circulation in settlement negotiations constitutes an ongoing misrepresentation of technical fact that Engineer A cannot passively permit. The public welfare paramount principle and the non-deception constraint together foreclose Engineer A's silence as a permissible option regardless of Attorney X's instructions. The harm to third parties — including the injured client who may receive a settlement calibrated to inaccurate causation findings, and the defendant who may settle based on inflated liability — gives the disclosure obligation a systemic dimension that transcends the bilateral attorney-engineer relationship.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: If Attorney X, upon being informed of the data inaccuracy, instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and proceed with the original report during settlement negotiations, that instruction does not constitute a legitimate exercise of the attorney's authority over the forensic engagement. The faithful agent obligation that Engineer A owes to Attorney X is bounded by the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception provisions, and those provisions are not waivable by client instruction. Engineer A's role as a forensic expert is defined by objectivity and technical integrity, not by advocacy for the retaining party's litigation position. Compliance with Attorney X's suppression instruction would transform Engineer A from an objective expert into an instrument of misrepresentation, violating the adversarial context non-exemption principle, the honesty in professional representations principle, and the error acknowledgment obligation simultaneously. Under these circumstances, Engineer A would be ethically required to refuse the instruction, and if Attorney X persisted, Engineer A would need to consider withdrawal from the engagement. Withdrawal does not, however, extinguish Engineer A's underlying obligation to ensure the corrected findings are not suppressed in a manner that corrupts the legal process, particularly if the erroneous report remains in active use.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The timing of Engineer A's discovery — after submission but before settlement conclusion — does carry independent ethical weight beyond what would exist in a post-settlement scenario. The pre-settlement window represents a period during which the erroneous report is actively operative: it is shaping negotiating positions, influencing assessments of liability magnitude, and potentially driving a settlement figure that neither party would have accepted had accurate data been available. This active operativeness creates a heightened urgency because the harm is prospective and preventable. Engineer A's disclosure at this stage can interrupt the causal chain before it produces an unjust outcome. By contrast, post-settlement discovery would involve a harm already crystallized, where disclosure obligations would shift in character — becoming less about prevention and more about remediation, potentially requiring engagement with the court or opposing counsel rather than solely with Attorney X. The temporal distinction therefore carries genuine ethical significance: the pre-settlement context imposes an affirmative obligation of immediate disclosure precisely because the corrective action remains capable of preventing the misrepresentation from producing its full harmful effect. Delay within this window — even brief delay — compounds the ethical violation because each passing moment of negotiation conducted on the basis of the inaccurate report deepens the misrepresentation's influence on the outcome.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The Board's analysis focuses on Engineer A's disclosure obligation upon discovering the error but does not examine whether Engineer A's original investigative methodology was itself deficient. This is a distinct and independently significant ethical question. If the data inaccuracy resulted from Engineer A's failure to apply appropriate investigative rigor — for example, relying on unverified secondary data sources, failing to cross-check critical inputs, or omitting standard validation steps — then the initial submission of the report may itself constitute a violation of the objectivity and truthfulness obligations under the Code, separate from the subsequent disclosure failure. The error acknowledgment obligation under Code provision III.1.a. encompasses not merely the duty to correct discovered errors but also the implicit duty to employ methodologies sufficiently rigorous to minimize the probability of material error in the first instance. A forensic expert who submits conclusions based on data that reasonable professional diligence would have identified as suspect has not merely made an innocent mistake — they have potentially violated the professional report integrity standard at the point of original submission. The Board's silence on this dimension leaves open whether Engineer A's conduct prior to discovery was itself ethically adequate, and that silence should not be read as implicit exoneration of the original methodology.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's categorical duty of truthfulness is not contingent on the consequences of disclosure for Attorney X's client. The Kantian framework underlying the Code's truthfulness provisions treats the obligation to correct a known material misrepresentation as a duty that holds regardless of outcome. Engineer A cannot coherently universalize a maxim permitting forensic experts to suppress discovered data inaccuracies when disclosure would harm their client's negotiating position, because such a universalized maxim would destroy the epistemic foundation upon which forensic expert testimony derives its value in legal proceedings. The duty therefore runs unconditionally: Engineer A fulfilled the categorical obligation by immediately advising Attorney X, and that fulfillment is ethically correct independent of whether it weakened the settlement position. The adverse consequence to the client does not retroactively undermine the ethical correctness of the disclosure — it merely illustrates the tension between deontological duty and consequentialist preference that the Code resolves in favor of truthfulness. Critically, the deontological analysis also forecloses the faithful agent duty as a competing categorical obligation capable of overriding truthfulness: the faithful agent role is instrumental and bounded, while the truthfulness duty is foundational and unbounded within the professional ethics framework.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.014947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the systemic harm to legal process integrity from permitting an inaccurate forensic report to remain operative during settlement negotiations categorically outweighs the particularized harm to Attorney X's client from a weakened negotiating position. The consequentialist calculus must account not only for the immediate parties but for the broader institutional effects: if forensic engineers were permitted — or expected — to remain silent about discovered data inaccuracies when disclosure would disadvantage their retaining client, the reliability of forensic expert testimony as an institution would be systematically degraded. Courts, opposing parties, and the public would lose the ability to trust that submitted forensic reports represent the expert's genuine and current best assessment of the technical facts. This systemic harm aggregates across all future cases in which forensic experts might face similar pressures, producing a far larger expected harm than the loss of negotiating advantage in any single case. Moreover, the consequentialist analysis must recognize that the injured client's interest in a favorable settlement is not a legitimate interest in a settlement inflated by inaccurate technical findings — it is an interest in a settlement that accurately reflects the defendant's actual liability. A settlement based on erroneous causation conclusions does not serve the injured client's genuine interests; it merely produces a number that may be higher or lower than the accurate figure, with no principled relationship to actual harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's treatment of the corrective disclosure obligation as non-negotiable — even under the pressure of an active settlement context — is precisely the expression of the professional virtues of intellectual honesty and integrity that the forensic engineering role demands. Virtue ethics asks not merely what rule applies but what a person of excellent professional character would do. A forensic engineer of excellent character does not experience the discovery of a material data error as a strategic problem to be managed in light of client interests; they experience it as an immediate professional obligation that admits no deferral. The virtue of intellectual honesty requires Engineer A to hold the accuracy of the technical record as a value that supersedes the convenience of the current litigation posture. The virtue of integrity requires that Engineer A's external conduct — advising Attorney X immediately — be consistent with the internal recognition that the submitted report no longer represents Engineer A's genuine professional conclusions. Silence in the face of a known material inaccuracy would constitute a form of professional self-betrayal that virtue ethics identifies as a corruption of character, not merely a rule violation. The adversarial settlement context, far from providing a virtue-based justification for silence, actually heightens the demand for these virtues precisely because the pressure to remain silent is greatest.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: If Engineer A had discovered the data inaccuracy before submitting the report rather than after, the ethical obligation to disclose — in the sense of correcting the report before submission — would have been identical in character but qualitatively less demanding in its corrective mechanics. Pre-submission discovery requires only that Engineer A revise the report to reflect accurate data before it enters the legal process; no external disclosure obligation arises because the misrepresentation has not yet been made. Post-submission discovery, by contrast, creates a qualitatively distinct and more demanding corrective obligation because the inaccurate report has already been introduced into an active legal proceeding and is being relied upon by Attorney X in negotiations. The post-submission context requires not merely internal correction but affirmative external disclosure — Engineer A must actively communicate the error to Attorney X and ensure the corrected conclusions replace the erroneous ones in the negotiating context. This distinction is ethically significant: the post-submission scenario involves an ongoing misrepresentation that Engineer A has a duty to interrupt, whereas the pre-submission scenario involves a potential misrepresentation that Engineer A has a duty to prevent. The urgency is therefore heightened in the post-submission context because each moment of inaction allows the misrepresentation to continue operating on the legal process.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: If settlement negotiations had already concluded and a settlement agreement had been signed before Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy, Engineer A's ethical obligations would differ materially in scope and direction from the pre-settlement disclosure duty. In the post-settlement scenario, disclosure to Attorney X alone would be insufficient because the legal proceeding has produced a binding outcome that may have been materially shaped by the inaccurate report. Engineer A's obligations would extend to considering whether the court, the opposing party, or other relevant authorities need to be informed, particularly if the settlement was judicially approved or if the inaccurate findings influenced a court record. The public welfare paramount principle and the non-deception constraint do not terminate upon settlement conclusion; they persist as long as the erroneous report remains part of a legal record capable of influencing future proceedings, establishing precedent, or being relied upon in related litigation. The post-settlement context also raises the question of whether Engineer A has an obligation to prepare and make available the corrected analysis, independent of whether any party requests it, so that the accurate technical record exists and can be accessed if the matter is reopened or if related claims arise. This represents a broader and more complex disclosure obligation than the pre-settlement duty, which is satisfied by immediate disclosure to Attorney X.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: If Engineer A had chosen to remain silent about the data inaccuracy on the grounds that the attorney-client relationship imposed a duty of confidentiality, that confidentiality rationale would not constitute a legitimate ethical defense under the NSPE Code and would represent a fundamental misapplication of the faithful agent principle. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to serve Attorney X's legitimate professional interests — which include receiving accurate technical information necessary to conduct the litigation ethically and effectively — not to protect Attorney X from information that is inconvenient to the current litigation strategy. Confidentiality within the forensic expert engagement applies to the contents of the report and the attorney's litigation strategy; it does not apply to Engineer A's own professional obligation to correct a material error in Engineer A's own work product. To invoke confidentiality as a basis for suppressing a known material inaccuracy in a submitted forensic report would be to weaponize the faithful agent principle against the very truthfulness obligations that give the forensic expert role its professional legitimacy. The Code's truthfulness provisions categorically foreclose this defense: Code provision III.1.a. imposes an unqualified obligation to acknowledge errors, and Code provision III.3.a. prohibits statements containing material misrepresentations or omissions — neither provision contains a confidentiality exception that would permit Engineer A to remain silent about a discovered data inaccuracy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The case resolves the tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Truthfulness Obligation by establishing a clear hierarchical ordering: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to Attorney X is real and operative, but it is bounded by the non-negotiable floor of truthfulness and error correction. The faithful agent principle does not authorize Engineer A to remain silent about a discovered data inaccuracy simply because disclosure may harm the client's negotiating position. Rather, the faithful agent obligation is properly understood as requiring Engineer A to serve Attorney X's legitimate professional interests — which cannot include reliance on a report Engineer A now knows to be materially inaccurate. This case teaches that the faithful agent principle is not a trump card that overrides truthfulness; instead, it is a principle that operates within the space defined by the Code's honesty provisions. When those provisions are triggered — as they are upon discovery of a material data error — the faithful agent obligation recedes to the extent it conflicts with the duty to disclose. The resolution is not a balancing test in which client loyalty and truthfulness are weighed against each other; it is a categorical subordination of client loyalty to truthfulness in the forensic expert context.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Adversarial Context Non-Exemption principle and the Public Welfare Paramount principle together resolve the tension raised by the adversarial litigation setting in a decisive and instructive way: the fact that Engineer A is operating as a retained expert within an adversarial proceeding does not transform Engineer A into an advocate whose obligations are defined by the client's litigation strategy. The case establishes that the adversarial structure of settlement negotiations is ethically irrelevant to Engineer A's corrective disclosure obligation. This is significant because it forecloses a potentially tempting rationalization — that the adversarial nature of litigation creates a zone of permissible silence for retained experts who discover inconvenient facts. The principle synthesis here is that the adversarial context, rather than relaxing Engineer A's objectivity duties, actually heightens the importance of those duties, because the legal process depends on forensic experts maintaining integrity precisely when adversarial pressures are greatest. The Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition reinforces this synthesis: allowing an inaccurate report to remain operative in settlement negotiations does not serve the client's genuine long-term interests, even if it appears to serve the client's short-term negotiating position. A settlement built on inaccurate forensic data is a structurally compromised outcome that disserves all parties, including Attorney X's client.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 401
answers question4: 403
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between the Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation and the Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context principle reveals that these two principles are not genuinely in tension in this case, despite the superficial appearance of conflict. A concern might be raised that immediate disclosure of the data inaccuracy could disrupt ongoing negotiations before a corrected analysis is prepared, thereby compromising the integrity of the legal process. However, the principle synthesis that emerges from this case is that forensic report integrity is achieved through accuracy and transparency, not through the uninterrupted continuation of negotiations premised on flawed data. The integrity of active litigation is not served by allowing an inaccurate expert report to remain operative; it is served by ensuring that the legal process operates on truthful technical foundations. Accordingly, the temporal urgency constraint — which the Board identifies as critically important given that negotiations were ongoing — does not create a conflict between these principles but instead reinforces their alignment: the sooner the error is disclosed, the sooner the legal process can be corrected, and the more fully forensic report integrity is preserved. This synthesis also answers the counterfactual question about post-settlement discovery: the pre-settlement timing does not merely create urgency, it creates a qualitatively distinct opportunity to prevent the legal process from being concluded on false premises — an opportunity that carries independent ethical weight and that the Code's provisions on truthfulness and error acknowledgment require Engineer A to seize immediately.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conclusions Rendered Invalid
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Affirmative_Duty_To_Correct_Constraint
activates constraint: Engineer_Must_Not_Misrepresent_Facts_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_On_Allowing_False_Statements_To_Stand_Constraint
causes state change: The original report transitions from 'submitted professional opinion' to 'known-inaccurate document'; Engineer A now holds knowledge that transforms continued silence into active misrepresentation; the report's legal utility is suspended pending correction
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Issue_Corrected_Analysis_Obligation
creates obligation: Notify_All_Parties_Relying_On_Report_Obligation
creates obligation: Withdraw_Or_Correct_Original_Conclusions_Obligation
emergency status: critical
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Simultaneous with Data Inaccuracy Discovered event; before disclosure to Attorney X
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: critical
comment: As a direct consequence of the data inaccuracy discovery, Engineer A's original report conclusions are rendered professionally untenable, they no longer represent Engineer A's honest expert opinion and cannot ethically be allowed to stand uncorrected.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Conduct Forensic Investigation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer / Forensic Expert
foreseen unintended effects: Risk that data sources could be unreliable or incomplete, potentially leading to flawed conclusions
fulfills obligation text: Applied professional engineering judgment to available data
fulfills obligation text: Performed investigation as retained to do
guided by principle text: Objective and thorough investigation
guided by principle text: Professional competence and due care
guided by principle text: Reliance on accurate and sufficient data
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Determine the cause of the mechanical product failure through rigorous investigation and produce defensible engineering conclusions
raises obligation text: Retrospectively, reliance on inaccurate data without sufficient verification may implicate duty of due diligence, though no bad faith is indicated at this stage
requires capability text: Data evaluation and interpretation
requires capability text: Forensic engineering methodology
requires capability text: Mechanical failure analysis
requires capability text: Root cause analysis
temporal marker: After retention, before report submission
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A performs the forensic engineering investigation into the mechanical product failure, basing the analytical work on data that is later discovered to be inaccurate. This is a volitional professional act involving methodological choices about what data to rely upon.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Upon discovering that the data underlying the submitted forensic report was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield materially different conclusions, what action must Engineer A take with respect to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations?
focus: Engineer A's affirmative obligation to immediately disclose a discovered material data inaccuracy to Attorney X, notwithstanding active settlement negotiations and the adversarial litigation context
option1: Immediately and affirmatively advise Attorney X of the discovered data inaccuracy and the corrected conclusions, treating disclosure as a non-deferrable professional obligation regardless of the active settlement negotiations
option2: Notify Attorney X of the discovered inaccuracy while simultaneously requesting Attorney X's guidance on timing and framing of any corrective disclosure, deferring to the attorney's judgment about when and how to introduce the corrected findings into the settlement process
option3: Prepare a corrected supplemental report and hold it in readiness for disclosure at the conclusion of the current negotiation round, on the grounds that introducing the correction mid-negotiation would disrupt the legal process before the corrected analysis can be properly reviewed and contextualized by all parties
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: If Attorney X instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and continue relying on the original inaccurate report during settlement negotiations, what action must Engineer A take?
focus: The scope and escalation of Engineer A's disclosure obligation when Attorney X, upon being informed of the data inaccuracy, instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and proceed with the original report during settlement negotiations
option1: Refuse Attorney X's suppression instruction, insist on the corrected findings being introduced into the settlement process, and if Attorney X persists, withdraw from the engagement while preserving the obligation to ensure the corrected analysis is not suppressed in a manner that corrupts the legal process
option2: Comply with Attorney X's instruction to defer introduction of the corrected findings until after the current negotiation round concludes, on the grounds that the attorney bears professional responsibility for litigation strategy decisions and Engineer A's corrective obligation is satisfied by having disclosed the inaccuracy to the retaining attorney
option3: Refuse Attorney X's suppression instruction and, upon Attorney X's persistence, immediately escalate disclosure directly to opposing counsel and the court without first withdrawing from the engagement, on the grounds that the erroneous report's active role in negotiations affecting third parties creates an immediate public welfare obligation that supersedes the attorney-client channel
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Does the post-submission, pre-settlement timing of Engineer A's discovery of the data inaccuracy create a qualitatively distinct and more demanding corrective obligation than pre-submission discovery would have imposed, and does the source of the data inaccuracy — whether arising from methodological deficiency or external circumstances — affect the character of Engineer A's ethical obligations?
focus: Whether the post-submission timing of Engineer A's discovery — after report submission but before settlement conclusion — creates a qualitatively distinct and heightened corrective obligation relative to pre-submission discovery, and whether Engineer A's original investigative methodology constitutes a separate and independently cognizable ethical issue
option1: Treat the post-submission discovery as imposing an immediate and affirmative external disclosure obligation to Attorney X — qualitatively more demanding than a pre-submission correction duty — and simultaneously document the source of the data inaccuracy to determine whether the original investigative methodology was itself deficient and whether that deficiency requires separate disclosure
option2: Treat the post-submission discovery as imposing the same corrective obligation that would have applied pre-submission — revise the analysis and provide the corrected report to Attorney X without separately characterizing the disclosure as more urgent or more demanding than a standard report revision, on the grounds that the truthfulness obligation is binary and does not vary in intensity based on the procedural posture of the litigation
option3: Disclose the corrected findings to Attorney X while expressly limiting the disclosure to the post-discovery correction obligation, deferring any examination of whether the original investigative methodology was deficient until after the settlement context is resolved, on the grounds that introducing a methodological critique of Engineer A's own prior work simultaneously with the corrective disclosure would compound the disruption to the legal process and exceed the scope of the immediate ethical obligation
role label: Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Upon discovering that the submitted forensic report contains a material data inaccuracy that renders its conclusions invalid — while Attorney X is actively using that report in settlement negotiations — what action must Engineer A take, and does the adversarial litigation context or the potential harm to the client's settlement position alter that obligation?
focus: Engineer A's affirmative obligation to immediately disclose a discovered data inaccuracy to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, notwithstanding the adversarial litigation context and potential harm to the client's negotiating position
option1: Immediately advise Attorney X of the data inaccuracy and its effect on the report's conclusions, without awaiting preparation of a corrected analysis, so that Attorney X can make informed decisions about the ongoing negotiations
option2: Notify Attorney X of the discovered inaccuracy while simultaneously preparing the corrected analysis, deferring formal disclosure to Attorney X until the replacement report is ready so that the disclosure is accompanied by actionable corrected findings rather than an unresolved gap
option3: Advise Attorney X of the inaccuracy and recommend suspension of settlement negotiations pending issuance of a corrected report, framing the disclosure as a litigation management recommendation within the scope of the forensic engagement rather than as a unilateral corrective action
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: If Attorney X instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and continue using the inaccurate report in settlement negotiations, what must Engineer A do, and does Engineer A's disclosure obligation extend beyond Attorney X to the court, the opposing party, or the public?
focus: The scope and escalation of Engineer A's disclosure obligation when Attorney X, upon being informed of the data inaccuracy, instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and proceed with the original report — and whether Engineer A's obligations extend beyond the attorney-client channel to the court, opposing party, or public
option1: Refuse Attorney X's suppression instruction, insist that the corrected findings replace the original report in the negotiating record, and if Attorney X persists, withdraw from the engagement while preserving the right to escalate disclosure to the court or opposing counsel to prevent the inaccurate report from producing a binding settlement outcome
option2: Refuse Attorney X's suppression instruction and withdraw from the engagement, treating withdrawal as the full discharge of Engineer A's professional obligation on the grounds that Engineer A is no longer a participant in the proceeding and the attorney bears sole responsibility for subsequent use of the original report
option3: Comply with Attorney X's instruction to defer disclosure of the corrected findings until after settlement concludes, on the grounds that the attorney — as the licensed legal professional responsible for the proceeding — is the appropriate decision-maker regarding the timing and manner in which technical findings enter the negotiating record, and that Engineer A's role as faithful agent requires deference to that judgment within the litigation context
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: When Engineer B omits pile driving records from a forensic report prepared in an adversarial litigation context, offering an explanation that is contradicted by the scope of the engagement and the available evidence, does that omission constitute a violation of the report completeness and methodological fidelity obligations under the NSPE Code, and what action is required to remedy it?
focus: Whether Engineer B's omission of pile driving records from the forensic report — and the contradictory professional explanation offered for that omission — constitutes an independent ethical violation of report completeness and methodological fidelity obligations, distinct from any disclosure obligation arising after submission
option1: Include the pile driving records in the forensic report with a transparent professional assessment of their reliability, clearly identifying any methodological limitations, so that the retaining attorney and all parties relying on the report have access to the complete evidentiary record
option2: Omit the pile driving records from the report body but disclose their existence and Engineer B's professional assessment of their reliability in a separate technical memorandum provided to the retaining attorney, leaving to the attorney the decision about whether and how to introduce them into the proceeding
option3: Omit the pile driving records from the report on the grounds that the engagement scope as defined by the retaining attorney did not require their analysis, and document the scope limitation in the report's methodology section without separately disclosing the existence of the omitted records to the attorney or opposing party
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Data Inaccuracy Discovered
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Affirmative_Duty_To_Correct_Public_Statements_Constraint
activates constraint: Do_Not_Mislead_Legal_Proceedings_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthfulness_In_Professional_Statements_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from a state of professional completion to a state of active ethical obligation; the submitted report is retroactively rendered unreliable; all legal proceedings relying on it are compromised; an affirmative duty to act immediately is triggered
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Do_Not_Allow_Inaccurate_Report_To_Continue_Influencing_Negotiations_Obligation
creates obligation: Document_Discovery_Of_Error_Obligation
creates obligation: Immediate_Disclosure_To_Attorney_X_Obligation
creates obligation: Prepare_Corrected_Report_Obligation
emergency status: critical
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After report submission; after settlement negotiations have begun; before settlement is concluded
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: critical
comment: Engineer A discovers that the underlying data used in the submitted forensic report was inaccurate and that corrected data would yield materially different conclusions, creating an immediate ethical crisis.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Data Inaccuracy Discovered (Event 3) → Conclusions Rendered Invalid (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As a direct consequence of the data inaccuracy discovery, Engineer A's original report conclusions are rendered invalid, meaning the evidentiary foundation of the submitted report collapses
cause: Data Inaccuracy Discovered (Event 3)
counterfactual: If the underlying data had been accurate, or if the inaccuracy had no material effect on conclusions, the original report would have remained valid and no disclosure obligation would have arisen
effect: Conclusions Rendered Invalid (Event 4)
necessary factors: Discovery of that inaccuracy by Engineer A post-submission
necessary factors: Existence of inaccurate underlying data used in the original report
necessary factors: Materiality of the inaccuracy, corrected data yields different conclusions
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary); data source provider (contributing)
sufficient factors: Inaccurate data + material effect on conclusions + post-submission discovery together are sufficient to render original conclusions invalid and create an ethical disclosure obligation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Decline to Consult Available Witnesses
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer / Expert retained by municipality
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer B's theories about pile behavior would remain untested against available firsthand knowledge
foreseen unintended effects: Report conclusions would be based on incomplete information, excluding perspectives that could have materially altered findings
guided by principle text: Objectivity requiring active consideration of contradictory evidence
guided by principle text: Professional responsibility to seek complete information before rendering conclusions
guided by principle text: Thoroughness and due diligence in forensic investigation
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Complete the report without engaging with witnesses whose testimony might contradict or complicate the conclusions Engineer B intended to reach in support of the municipality
requires capability text: Ability to evaluate conflicting accounts of construction conditions
requires capability text: Forensic investigation methodology including witness consultation
requires capability text: Professional judgment about what information is material to engineering conclusions
temporal marker: During investigation and report preparation in BER Case 95-5 parallel, before report issuance
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Duty of due diligence in forensic engineering investigation
violates obligation text: Duty to test theories against available evidence and witnesses
violates obligation text: Obligation to perform a complete and thorough forensic investigation
violates obligation text: Obligation to seek out and consider all materially relevant information before drawing conclusions
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B made a deliberate decision not to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, workers, or other available witnesses who could have verified or refuted theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal before reaching predicted depth. This decision to forgo available corroborating or contradicting testimony was a volitional professional choice.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Disclose Data Inaccuracy to Attorney
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer / Forensic Expert
foreseen unintended effects: Corrected conclusions may favor the defendant, disadvantaging the party Engineer A was retained to support
foreseen unintended effects: Could expose Engineer A to professional or legal consequences for the initial inaccuracy
foreseen unintended effects: May harm the interests of Attorney X's injured client in the short term
foreseen unintended effects: May undermine or collapse Attorney X's negotiating position in ongoing settlement
fulfills obligation text: Affirmative duty of honesty and truthfulness in professional reports and findings
fulfills obligation text: Duty to protect the integrity of the legal process
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to be truthful and not misrepresent engineering findings
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to correct materially false or misleading information Engineer A has placed into the legal process
guided by principle text: Affirmative duty to correct known errors
guided by principle text: Honesty and integrity as foundational engineering ethics obligations
guided by principle text: Objectivity independent of client interest
guided by principle text: Protection of the integrity of the legal and engineering professions
guided by principle text: Truthfulness in professional reports
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Correct the record by informing Attorney X that the report conclusions were based on inaccurate data and would differ under accurate data, ensuring the legal process is not misled
raises obligation text: If disclosure is withheld: duty to public safety and welfare over client interest
raises obligation text: If disclosure is withheld: obligation not to allow false or misleading engineering conclusions to stand in legal proceedings
raises obligation text: If disclosure is withheld: obligation of honesty and integrity in professional reports
requires capability text: Ability to reassess and revise engineering conclusions based on corrected data
requires capability text: Clear communication of technical error and its implications to a non-engineer attorney
requires capability text: Courage to disclose findings adverse to client interest
requires capability text: Professional judgment to recognize materiality of data inaccuracy
temporal marker: After report submission, before settlement negotiations conclude, the critical ethical decision point
temporal sequence: 13
within competence: true
comment: Upon discovering that the data underlying the report was inaccurate and that corrected data would yield different conclusions, Engineer A faces the decision, identified by the Board as an affirmative obligation, to immediately notify Attorney X of the error while settlement negotiations are still ongoing. This is the central ethical action point of the case.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Disclose Data Inaccuracy to Attorney Action 4 → Legal Process Integrity Compromised Event 5 - PREVENTION pathway
type: CausalChain
causal language: Upon discovering that the data underlying the report was inaccurate and that corrected data would yield different conclusions, Engineer A discloses this to Attorney X: this action, if taken, is the critical intervention preventing ongoing corruption of the legal process
cause: Disclose Data Inaccuracy to Attorney (Action 4)
counterfactual: Without disclosure, settlement negotiations would continue to be influenced by invalid expert conclusions, directly compromising legal process integrity; disclosure is the necessary countermeasure
effect: Legal Process Integrity Compromised (Event 5). PREVENTION pathway
necessary factors: Attorney X's ability to act on the disclosure to correct or withdraw reliance on the flawed report
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness of the inaccuracy and its material effect
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional decision to disclose rather than conceal
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Timely disclosure + attorney's corrective action together are sufficient to prevent further compromise of legal process integrity
within agent control: true

Disclose Data Inaccuracy to Attorney (Action 4) → Legal Process Integrity Compromised (Event 5) — PREVENTION pathway
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Context Non-Justification Recognition Capability
type: AdversarialContextNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adversarial Context Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the adversarial nature of the litigation and settlement context does not justify allowing inaccurate data and conclusions to stand in the submitted forensic report, and to apply the same completeness and correction standards as would apply in a non-adversarial professional context.
casecontext: Engineer A's forensic report was submitted during active settlement negotiations between Attorney X and the defendant's attorney, creating potential pressure to allow inaccurate conclusions to stand rather than disrupt the settlement process.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The professional obligation to correct the forensic report despite the active settlement negotiations and the potential disruption to Attorney X's litigation strategy.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.288228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Context Non-Justification Recognition Forensic Correction
type: AdversarialContextNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adversarial Context Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the adversarial nature of the civil litigation and active settlement negotiations did not justify deferring or withholding correction of the discovered data inaccuracy in the submitted forensic report — applying the same completeness and objectivity standards as in non-adversarial professional contexts.
casecontext: Engineer A discovered data inaccuracy during active settlement negotiations, creating pressure to defer disclosure — which the BER determined did not exempt Engineer A from the immediate correction obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The affirmative obligation to immediately advise Attorney X of the data inaccuracy despite the active settlement negotiations, recognizing that facts are not adversarial even when interests are polarizing
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation. These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Settlement Non-Deferral of Error Correction Constraint Instance
type: AdversarialSettlementContextForensicReportCorrectionNon-DeferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X is in active settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney at the time Engineer A discovers the data inaccuracy, creating pressure to defer correction until negotiations conclude
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Adversarial Settlement Context Forensic Report Correction Non-Deferral Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from deferring or suppressing correction of the discovered data inaccuracy on the basis that Attorney X is actively engaged in settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney — the adversarial settlement context does not justify withholding correction of materially inaccurate forensic conclusions.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.5.a; BER Case 95-5; principle that adversarial context does not exempt engineers from objectivity obligations
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
temporalscope: During the period of active settlement negotiations following Engineer A's discovery of the data inaccuracy
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.286627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information Held — Forensic Findings
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of report through conclusion of settlement or formal correction
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X's client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A holds confidential forensic findings, report conclusions, and newly discovered data inaccuracy information within the attorney-client privileged litigation context
terminatedby: Settlement concluded, or Engineer A discloses error to Attorney X and corrected report issued
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
triggeringevent: Engineer A submits forensic report to Attorney X within litigation context; subsequently discovers data error creating additional confidential knowledge
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.280449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Bar to Error Correction Constraint Instance
type: ConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A holds confidential forensic findings and report conclusions within the attorney-client relationship; the confidentiality constraint shapes how and to whom the discovered inaccuracy may be disclosed
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's confidentiality obligations within the attorney-client relationship do not bar Engineer A from advising Attorney X of the discovered data inaccuracy — the confidentiality constraint operates within the professional relationship and does not prevent the engineer from correcting errors to the retaining attorney, though it does constrain disclosure of the inaccuracy to external parties without authorization.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4 (confidentiality); attorney-client privilege principles; NSPE Code Section II.3.a (objectivity)
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic engagement and post-submission correction period
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.287255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer
type: DockFoundationDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Dock and foundation design', 'litigation_status': 'Co-defendant with municipality'}
caseinvolvement: Originally retained by the municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles; subsequently became a defendant in contractor litigation; retained an independent geotechnical consultant to observe test pile driving; testified during mediation regarding geotechnical firm's report and pile set-up strength expectations; later discovered inaccuracies in data underlying his own forensic report conclusions, triggering an obligation to immediately notify Attorney X.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Municipality Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_consultant', 'target': 'Independent Geotechnical Consultant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Dock Foundation Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles.
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles.
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.281727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Capability
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the discovery of data inaccuracy underlying the submitted forensic report creates an affirmative obligation to acknowledge the error to Attorney X — including communicating that the report's conclusions were based on inaccurate data and that corrected data would yield different conclusions.
casecontext: Engineer A discovered post-submission that the data underlying the forensic report conclusions was inaccurate, triggering an error acknowledgment obligation to the retaining attorney.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The professional obligation to acknowledge to Attorney X that the submitted forensic report contains conclusions based on inaccurate data.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.288361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Obligation
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery of data inaccuracy through formal notification to Attorney X and issuance of corrected conclusions
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X's client
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Defendant's attorney
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
stateclass: Error Acknowledgment Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to acknowledge and correct the discovered data inaccuracy that renders the submitted report's conclusions unsupportable
terminatedby: Engineer A formally notifies Attorney X of the error and provides corrected analysis
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
triggeringevent: Engineer A independently discovers that the data underlying the submitted report was inaccurate and that correct data yields different conclusions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.280797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary Error Correction Capability
type: ForensicExpertFaithfulAgentBoundaryinErrorCorrectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the faithful agent obligation owed to Attorney X does not extend to withholding the discovered data inaccuracy from Attorney X, and to correctly identify that notifying Attorney X of the inaccuracy — while leaving strategic decisions to Attorney X — is the proper fulfillment of the faithful agent role.
casecontext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X in a faithful agent capacity as forensic expert, and must navigate the boundary between legitimate faithful agent service and impermissible suppression of discovered errors.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The professional obligation to notify Attorney X of the data inaccuracy while respecting Attorney X's authority to make strategic litigation and settlement decisions in response.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.287805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary Non-Suppression of Error Correction — Attorney X
type: ForensicExpertFaithfulAgentBoundaryNon-SuppressionofErrorCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained as a forensic expert by Attorney X; the submitted report was being actively relied upon in settlement negotiations when Engineer A discovered the underlying data was inaccurate
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary Non-Suppression of Error Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Attorney X did not extend to withholding, suppressing, or delaying correction of the discovered material data inaccuracy in the submitted forensic report — the faithful agent duty was bounded by the overriding obligation to be objective, truthful, and non-deceptive, prohibiting Engineer A from treating the attorney's reliance on the report during settlement negotiations as a basis for remaining silent about the discovered error.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, II.4; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
temporalscope: From the moment of discovery of the data inaccuracy through the conclusion of the litigation
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
textreferences: this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.293668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Engagement with Attorney X
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention by Attorney X through submission of forensic report and continuing through settlement negotiations
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X's client (injured party)
affectedparties: Defendant's attorney
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's professional relationship with Attorney X as retaining attorney
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — relationship persists through settlement negotiations
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
triggeringevent: Attorney X retains Engineer A to perform forensic engineering investigation and prepare written report
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.279364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Affirmative Error Correction Disclosure
type: Post-SubmissionReportDataInaccuracyDiscoveryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Submission Report Data Inaccuracy Discovery Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize, upon discovering that the data underlying the submitted forensic report was inaccurate, the affirmative obligation to immediately advise Attorney X — including recognizing that the active settlement negotiations did not exempt Engineer A from this disclosure obligation.
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations and subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate, triggering an affirmative obligation to immediately notify Attorney X.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that corrected data would yield different conclusions and that Attorney X required this information during settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.295579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary Error Correction
type: ForensicExpertFaithfulAgentBoundaryinErrorCorrectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the faithful agent obligation owed to Attorney X did not extend to withholding or delaying notification of the discovered data inaccuracy — that the boundary of faithful agent service required disclosure rather than suppression of the error.
casecontext: Engineer A owed faithful agent duties to Attorney X as retaining counsel, but those duties did not extend to concealing a discovered data error that materially affected the forensic report's conclusions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The affirmative obligation to notify Attorney X of the inaccuracy while leaving Attorney X to make strategic decisions about how to proceed with settlement negotiations
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.295873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Capability
type: ForensicExpertWitnessHonestyandIntegrityinReportPreparationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Honesty and Integrity in Report Preparation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to be honest and truthful in the forensic report submitted to Attorney X, and upon discovering that the report's conclusions were based on inaccurate data, to acknowledge this to Attorney X and communicate the corrected findings with integrity regardless of the adversarial context.
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations and subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The professional obligation to notify Attorney X that the submitted report contains conclusions based on inaccurate data and that corrected data would yield different conclusions.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.288092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Adversarial Context
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to maintain objectivity in the forensic investigation and report — including correcting the report upon discovering data inaccuracy — regardless of the adversarial litigation and settlement context.
casecontext: Engineer A served as a forensic expert in civil litigation and was obligated to maintain objectivity including through post-submission error correction.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to correct the forensic report conclusions upon discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate, maintaining the same objectivity standards as in non-adversarial professional contexts
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation. These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation. These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.296014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Capability
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to conduct the forensic investigation and render opinions based on technical evidence and professional judgment, and upon discovering data inaccuracy, to maintain objectivity by correcting the record rather than allowing inaccurate conclusions to stand in service of Attorney X's litigation position.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained as a forensic expert in civil litigation involving a mechanical product failure causing personal injuries, and submitted a report during active settlement negotiations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the data underlying the report conclusions was inaccurate and that corrected data would yield different conclusions — requiring correction regardless of the adversarial context.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X.
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.287962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Mechanical Product Failure Forensic Competence
type: MechanicalProductFailureForensicInvestigationCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mechanical Product Failure Forensic Investigation Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed domain-specific technical competence to conduct forensic engineering investigations of mechanical product failures, prepare written reports with conclusions regarding accident causation, and identify when data underlying prior conclusions was inaccurate and how corrected data would alter those conclusions.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained to investigate a mechanical product failure that resulted in extensive injuries to Attorney X's client, and conducted the investigation and prepared a written report with conclusions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's conduct of the forensic investigation, preparation of the written report with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and subsequent discovery that the underlying data was inaccurate.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client.
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.288554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Mechanical Product Failure Forensic Investigation
type: MechanicalProductFailureForensicInvestigationCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mechanical Product Failure Forensic Investigation Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed forensic engineering competence to investigate mechanical product and foundation failures — including dock pile foundation design and adequacy assessment — sufficient to prepare a written forensic report with conclusions submitted to retaining counsel in civil litigation.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained to conduct a forensic investigation of the dock pile foundation failure that was the subject of civil litigation between the contractor, Engineer A, and the municipality.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A conducted a forensic investigation of the dock pile foundation, prepared a written report with conclusions submitted to Attorney X, and subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Deception Constraint in Forensic Report Submission
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has submitted a forensic report that is being relied upon in settlement negotiations and has discovered the underlying data is inaccurate, making continued silence a form of deception by omission
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the NSPE Code's non-deception provision from allowing Attorney X to continue relying on and using a forensic report that Engineer A knows to be based on inaccurate data — permitting continued reliance on the known-inaccurate report would constitute a deceptive act by omission.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a (avoid deceptive acts); Non-Deception (Constraint) established by ethics code provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
temporalscope: From the moment of discovery of data inaccuracy onward
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.286948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Objectivity and Truthfulness Constraint in Forensic Expert Role
type: AdversarialExpertSelectiveDataOmissionState
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is operating within an adversarial litigation context where the report is being used to advance Attorney X's settlement position, creating structural pressure to subordinate objectivity to client interest
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Adversarial Expert Selective Data Omission State
constraintstatement: Engineer A, operating as a forensic expert in an adversarial proceeding, is constrained from allowing the adversarial context to justify continued reliance on a report known to contain inaccurate data — the objectivity and truthfulness obligation requires correction regardless of the adversarial posture of the proceeding.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; BER Case 95-5; Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic engagement and post-submission period
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.287102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Submission Data Inaccuracy Correction Constraint Instance
type: Post-SubmissionForensicReportDataInaccuracyCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report to Attorney X in connection with a mechanical product failure litigation; after submission but before settlement is concluded, Engineer A discovers the underlying data was inaccurate and accurate data would produce different conclusions
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X with conclusions based on data subsequently discovered to be inaccurate — and where accurate data would produce materially different conclusions — is constrained from remaining silent about the discovered inaccuracy and must immediately advise Attorney X and take corrective action, regardless of the active settlement negotiations.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a (objectivity and truthfulness), II.5.a (non-deception), III.1.a (professional responsibility acknowledgment); BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A discovers the data inaccuracy through completion of corrected report submission
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.286486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Submission Data Inaccuracy Discovery Capability
type: Post-SubmissionReportDataInaccuracyDiscoveryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Submission Report Data Inaccuracy Discovery Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize, following submission of the forensic report to Attorney X, that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate and that corrected data would yield different conclusions — triggering the professional obligation to notify Attorney X.
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, then subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate and that corrected data would alter the conclusions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's discovery that the data upon which the report conclusions were based was inaccurate, and recognition that corrected data would produce different conclusions.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.287527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
type: SelectiveInformationOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that allowing the submitted forensic report to stand with conclusions based on inaccurate data — without correction — would constitute a material omission that creates a misleading picture of the technical findings, and to identify the professional obligation to correct the record by notifying Attorney X of the inaccuracy.
casecontext: Engineer A's submitted forensic report contained conclusions based on inaccurate data, and allowing those conclusions to stand without correction would create a materially misleading professional record.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The professional obligation to notify Attorney X that the report's conclusions were based on inaccurate data rather than allowing the inaccurate conclusions to stand uncorrected.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.288691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Settlement Context Forensic Report Correction Non-Deferral
type: SettlementContextForensicReportCorrectionNon-DeferralCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Settlement Context Forensic Report Correction Non-Deferral Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that the active status of settlement negotiations between Attorney X and the defendant's attorney did not justify deferring notification of the discovered data inaccuracy in the submitted forensic report.
casecontext: Attorney X was actively negotiating settlement with the defendant's attorney when Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy, creating pressure to defer disclosure — which Engineer A was obligated to resist.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to immediately advise Attorney X despite the potentially disruptive effect on settlement strategy, recognizing that the settlement context created no exception to the correction obligation
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.295717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Settlement Context Non-Deferral Capability
type: SettlementContextForensicReportCorrectionNon-DeferralCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Settlement Context Forensic Report Correction Non-Deferral Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the active status of Attorney X's settlement negotiations does not justify deferring notification of the discovered data inaccuracy, and to promptly notify Attorney X despite the potentially disruptive effect on settlement strategy.
casecontext: Attorney X was in active settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney when Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy in the submitted forensic report.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The professional obligation to notify Attorney X of the data inaccuracy immediately upon discovery, without waiting for settlement negotiations to conclude.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:37:02.356886+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.287669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Temporal Urgency of Error Correction Disclosure Constraint Instance
type: TemporalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Settlement negotiations are actively ongoing at the time Engineer A discovers the data inaccuracy, creating a time-sensitive window in which correction must occur before settlement decisions are finalized on the basis of inaccurate conclusions
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Temporal Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by temporal urgency to disclose the discovered data inaccuracy to Attorney X promptly — the active status of settlement negotiations means that delay in correction increases the risk that settlement decisions will be made on the basis of materially inaccurate forensic conclusions, making prompt disclosure a time-sensitive professional obligation.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint; principle that risk disclosures must be made promptly upon identification
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
temporalscope: Immediately upon Engineer A's discovery of the data inaccuracy, while settlement negotiations remain active
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Following Engineer A's investigation and Engineer A submitting the report to Attorney X, but before the settlement negotiations are concluded, Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.287396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A conducts forensic investigation before Engineer A submits written report to Attorney X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X.
from entity text: Engineer A conducts forensic investigation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A submits written report to Attorney X
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A submits written report to Attorney X
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A discovers data inaccuracy during settlement negotiations between Attorney X and defendant's attorney
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Following Engineer A's investigation and Engineer A submitting the report to Attorney X, but before the settlement negotiations are concluded, Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate.
from entity text: Engineer A discovers data inaccuracy
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: settlement negotiations between Attorney X and defendant's attorney
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: settlement negotiations between Attorney X and def
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A submits written report before settlement negotiations conclude
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Following Engineer A's investigation and Engineer A submitting the report to Attorney X, but before the settlement negotiations are concluded...
from entity text: Engineer A submits written report
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: settlement negotiations conclude
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: settlement negotiations conclude
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A submits written report to Attorney X before Engineer A discovers data inaccuracy
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Following Engineer A's investigation and Engineer A submitting the report to Attorney X, but before the settlement negotiations are concluded, Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate.
from entity text: Engineer A submits written report to Attorney X
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A discovers data inaccuracy
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A discovers data inaccuracy
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A's obligation to notify Attorney X starts moment of data inaccuracy discovery
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: starts
evidence: Once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate... Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
from entity text: Engineer A's obligation to notify Attorney X
owl time property: time:intervalStarts
to entity text: moment of data inaccuracy discovery
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 start at the same time, Entity1 ends first
interval starts: moment of data inaccuracy discovery
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Constraint — Pile Driving Records and On-Site Representatives
type: AdverseOpinionAvailableEvidenceConsultationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B concluded that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements without consulting pile driving records showing refusal or speaking with Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, or workers who were available and could have testified to the accuracy of the driving records
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adverse Opinion Available Evidence Consultation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from issuing adverse technical opinions about the adequacy of the 19 piles without first consulting all reasonably available evidence sources — including pile driving records, Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — establishing that the failure to consult available witnesses and documentation before rendering adverse conclusions about pile adequacy constituted a violation of the objectivity and completeness obligations of the NSPE Code.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
temporalscope: During the development of the forensic pile foundation report, prior to finalizing adverse conclusions about the 19 piles
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.294275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Pile Driving Records Witnesses
type: AdverseTechnicalOpinionEvidenceConsultationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to consult all reasonably available evidence — including pile driving records, Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — before forming and issuing adverse opinions about the adequacy of the 19 piles.
casecontext: Engineer B formed adverse technical opinions about pile adequacy without consulting available witnesses or reviewing pile driving records, violating the obligation to base professional opinions on established facts and completed professional analysis.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B never consulted Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, or workers, and intentionally disregarded pile driving records when forming the adverse opinion that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.296292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission Constraint
type: AdversarialContextClientDisserviceThroughSelectiveReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's report concluded 19 piles were inadequate while omitting pile driving records showing refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength several multiples over design requirements — findings that, if included, would have materially altered or undermined the adverse conclusion
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adversarial Context Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from producing a forensic report that selectively omitted pile driving records showing refusal and wave equation calculations showing adequate pile strength — this selective omission disserved the municipality's genuine interests by potentially misdirecting the client toward an unsupported legal position while exposing the municipality to professional and legal scrutiny for relying on an incomplete expert report.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, II.4; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
temporalscope: During the development and submission of the forensic pile foundation report
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.295268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Comparative Test Condition Replication Constraint — Vibratory Hammer and Pre-Record Drops
type: ComparativeTestConditionReplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B supervised test pile driving intended to replicate original conditions to assess whether piles would gain sufficient strength; a vibratory hammer was used instead of the original impact hammer, piles were not driven to the same depth, and the hammer was dropped several times before blow count records commenced — conditions that Engineer A's geotechnical consultant testified would have broken the pile bond and undervalued skin friction
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Comparative Test Condition Replication Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to use materially equivalent equipment, methods, and procedural conditions as those used in the original pile driving when supervising the comparative test pile driving — prohibiting the use of a vibratory hammer instead of the original impact hammer, different penetration depth requirements, and pre-record hammer drops that would break the pile bond and undervalue skin friction values — as these material differences invalidated the comparability of the test results and undermined the reliability of the conclusions about pile adequacy.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving
temporalscope: During the supervision and reporting of the comparative test pile driving program
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests
textreferences: after the 30-day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced
textreferences: the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.294494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Vibratory Hammer
type: ComparativeTestingMethodologicalFidelityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to identify and replicate all material methodological parameters of the original pile driving — including using the same hammer type, achieving the same penetration depth, and avoiding pre-record hammer drops that break pile bond — resulting in a test program that did not validly replicate original conditions.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained to supervise test pile driving to determine whether piles would gain sufficient strength, but the test program deviated from original conditions in multiple material respects.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B supervised test pile driving using a vibratory hammer rather than the original hammer type, failed to achieve the same penetration depth required for plug formation, and allowed hammer drops before blow count recording commenced — all of which invalidated the comparative validity of the test results
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving
textreferences: after the 30-day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced. In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests
textreferences: the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.296436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Professional Explanation Scope vs Disbelief
type: ContradictoryProfessionalExplanationNon-IssuanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to maintain consistency in professional explanations for the omission of pile driving records — first claiming the records were outside the scope of work, then claiming they were disbelieved — creating a contradictory pattern that violated professional obligations of honesty and non-deception.
casecontext: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued, Engineer B provided contradictory explanations for why pile driving records were omitted from the forensic report.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B first stated 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work,' then subsequently stated 'We just did not believe the driving records' — two contradictory explanations for the same omission
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.296730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Dynamic Pile Test Equipment Failure Non-Disclosure
type: DynamicPileTestEquipmentFailureDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dynamic Pile Test Equipment Failure Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that dynamic test equipment failure during the test program constituted material information requiring disclosure in the concluding report — omitting this information prevented readers from independently evaluating the reliability and validity of the test results.
casecontext: Dynamic test equipment failed during Engineer B's supervised test pile driving program, but this failure was not disclosed in Engineer B's concluding report.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's concluding report did not disclose that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, despite this being material to the validity of the test results
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.296573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Dynamic Test Equipment Failure Disclosure Constraint — Forensic Pile Report
type: ForensicTestingMethodologicalConsistencyandEquipmentFailureDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Dynamic test equipment failed during the test pile driving supervised by Engineer B; Engineer A's geotechnical consultant testified and showed that the equipment had failed; Engineer B did not report the equipment failure in the concluding report
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Forensic Testing Methodological Consistency and Equipment Failure Disclosure Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to disclose in the forensic pile foundation report that dynamic test equipment had failed during the comparative test pile driving program — this material methodological limitation directly affected the reliability of the test results and the conclusions drawn from them, and its omission rendered the report incomplete and misleading.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test
temporalscope: In the forensic pile foundation report submitted following the comparative test pile driving program
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.294930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Forensic Expert Honesty Integrity Selective Data Defense Violation
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to maintain objectivity as a forensic expert — instead assuming a responsibility to defend the client municipality through selective use of data, constituting an egregious denial of professional duties in any legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal setting.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality as a forensic expert but produced a report that assumed a responsibility to defend the client rather than render objective professional opinions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's report selectively omitted pile driving records, wave equation calculations, equipment failure disclosure, and available witness testimony — all of which would have supported Engineer A's position — while presenting only data supporting the municipality's litigation position
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation. These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Non-Advocate Objectivity Constraint — Municipal Client Retention
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality in adversarial litigation; the Board concluded Engineer B assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality through selective use of data, constituting an egregious denial of professional duties
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, retained by the municipality as a forensic expert, was prohibited from adopting the role of an advocate for the municipality — the engineer's duty was to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of all available facts, including pile driving records and wave equation calculations, and Engineer B must not have compromised professional independence by aligning technical opinions with the municipality's adversarial interest in defeating the contractor's claim.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, III.7; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic engagement, from initial retention through report submission
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.295122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Pile Foundation Adequacy Wave Equation Analysis Omission
type: PileFoundationAdequacyEvaluationCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pile Foundation Adequacy Evaluation Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possessed technical competence in pile foundation adequacy evaluation but failed to apply wave equation analysis to pile driving records — which would have shown that the 19 piles driven to essential refusal had strength several multiples over calculated load requirements — instead relying solely on skin friction area calculations.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained as a forensic expert to assess pile adequacy but produced conclusions based on incomplete analytical methods, omitting wave equation analysis of available pile driving records.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's report assessed pile adequacy using only skin friction resistance values applied to pile penetration square footage, without applying wave equation calculations to pile driving records showing essential refusal
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: This opinion was based on the fact that the 19 piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Pile Driving Records Omission
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseMaterialOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Material Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that a contractual scope-of-work limitation did not constitute a valid professional justification for omitting pile driving records from the forensic report — invoking scope-of-work as an excuse for failing to review material evidence constituted an ethical violation.
casecontext: Engineer B invoked scope-of-work limitations as an initial justification for omitting pile driving records showing piles driven to essential refusal — a justification the BER found ethically impermissible.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B initially claimed pile driving records were outside the scope of work to justify their omission, when in fact scope-of-work limitations cannot excuse omission of material evidence from a forensic report
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.296872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Pile Driving Records Omission Constraint
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExculpationforMaterialEvidenceOmissionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B claimed the pile driving records were outside the scope of work as one justification for their omission from the forensic report, despite the records being directly material to the conclusions about pile adequacy
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Exculpation for Material Evidence Omission Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from invoking a contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting pile driving records from the forensic report — the pile driving records showing that the 19 piles had been driven to essential refusal were material evidence bearing directly on the conclusions of the report, and the contractual scope did not excuse their omission when Engineer B was aware of their existence and materiality.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: During the development and submission of the forensic pile foundation report
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.294788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Selective Data Defense Assumption Prohibition — Pile Foundation Forensic Report
type: AdversarialExpertReportMaterialFindingDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality to evaluate 19 piles in the dock foundation litigation; Engineer B's report concluded the piles did not meet safety factor requirements while omitting pile driving records showing refusal and wave equation calculations showing adequate strength
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adversarial Expert Report Material Finding Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from assuming a responsibility to defend the retaining client municipality through selective use of data in the forensic pile foundation report — including omitting pile driving records showing that the 19 piles had been driven to essential refusal, failing to apply accepted wave equation calculations that would have shown pile strength several multiples over design requirements, failing to disclose dynamic test equipment failure, and failing to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives — this selective data use constituted an egregious denial of professional duties in any setting, whether legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, III.7; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
temporalscope: Throughout the development and submission of the forensic pile foundation report
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.293977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Selective Data Omission Forensic Report Pile Driving Records
type: SelectiveInformationOmissionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that omitting pile driving records showing piles driven to essential refusal — and omitting wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over design requirements — constituted selective data use that assumed a responsibility to defend the client rather than render objective professional opinions.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and assess pile adequacy, but produced a report that selectively omitted material evidence favorable to Engineer A's position.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's concluding report omitted pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure disclosure — all of which were material to the adequacy assessment of the 19 piles
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.296155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B issues report before Engineer A queries Engineer B about omissions
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records.'
from entity text: Engineer B issues report
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A queries Engineer B about omissions
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A queries Engineer B about omissions
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Exclude Pile Driving Records from Report
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer / Expert retained by municipality
foreseen unintended effects: Opposing party and the legal process would be deprived of materially relevant engineering information
foreseen unintended effects: Report would present a misleading picture of pile adequacy by omitting data showing piles met strength requirements by a significant margin
guided by principle text: Completeness and objectivity in engineering reporting
guided by principle text: Honesty and integrity as non-negotiable professional standards
guided by principle text: Independence of engineering judgment from client advocacy
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Produce a report supporting the client municipality's litigation position by concluding that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements, without including contradictory pile driving record data
requires capability text: Forensic geotechnical engineering
requires capability text: Objective interpretation of pile driving records
requires capability text: Pile foundation analysis
requires capability text: Wave equation calculation methodology
temporal marker: During report preparation in BER Case 95-5 parallel, before report issuance
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation text: Duty to include all materially relevant data in forensic engineering findings
violates obligation text: Duty to the integrity of the legal process as an engineering expert
violates obligation text: Obligation not to selectively use data to favor a client
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid deceptive or misleading professional reports
violates obligation text: Obligation to be truthful and complete in professional engineering reports
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B deliberately omitted from the concluding report the fact that the 19 disputed piles had been driven to essential refusal and that wave equation calculations would indicate their strength exceeded load requirements by several multiples, data that materially contradicted the report's conclusions. This selective exclusion was a volitional professional decision to present incomplete findings.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Exclude Pile Driving Records from Report (Action 5) → Precedent Case Ethical Violation Established (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B deliberately omitted from the concluding report the fact that the 19 disputed piles had been driven: this selective omission, combined with other omissions, constitutes the core factual basis for the ethical violation finding in BER Case 95-5
cause: Exclude Pile Driving Records from Report (Action 5)
counterfactual: Had Engineer B included the pile driving records, the report would have reflected the complete factual record; the ethical violation finding would likely not have been established on this basis
effect: Precedent Case Ethical Violation Established (Event 6)
necessary factors: Engineer B's deliberate decision to omit the pile driving records
necessary factors: Materiality of the omitted records to the report's conclusions
necessary factors: The omission's capacity to mislead the client or legal process about the true state of facts
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Deliberate omission of pile driving records + omission of dynamic test equipment failure (Action 6) + refusal to consult available witnesses (Action 7) together constitute a sufficient pattern of selective data use to establish an ethical violation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Forensic Engineering Expert Completeness Standard — BER Case 95-5
type: ForensicEngineeringExpertCompletenessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review professional consensus
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Completeness and Impartiality in Forensic Engineering Expert Reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Forensic Engineering Expert Completeness Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to Engineer B's conduct in BER Case 95-5 as the benchmark against which selective data use, failure to consult available witnesses, and omission of material technical findings (pile driving records, dynamic test equipment failure, wave equation analysis) were judged to constitute an egregious breach of professional duty; also applied analogically to the current case to establish Engineer A's obligations
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.281568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity in Civil Litigation Constraint — General Application BER 95-5
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board's discussion establishes the general principle that forensic engineering experts have an ethical responsibility to perform services with honesty and integrity, citing BER Case 95-5 as instructive regarding expectations when a professional engineer serves as an engineering expert
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation
constraintclass: Ethical Constraint
constraintstatement: Professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation are constrained by an ethical responsibility to perform forensic engineering services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in professional reports — this constraint applies in any setting, whether legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal, and prohibits selective use of data, failure to consult available evidence, omission of material findings, and assumption of a client-defense advocacy role.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation
temporalscope: Throughout all forensic engineering engagements in connection with civil litigation
textreferences: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation
textreferences: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
textreferences: the Board of Ethical Review believes that BER Case 95-5 is instructive regarding the expectations when a professional engineer serves as an engineering expert
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.295433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

II.3.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

III.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Independent Geotechnical Consultant Observer
type: IndependentGeotechnicalLitigationObserver
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (Geotechnical)', 'retaining_party': 'Engineer A', 'role_type': 'Independent observer and expert witness'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by Engineer A to independently observe the test pile driving supervised by Engineer B; testified and demonstrated that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, that test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration as original piles, that a vibratory hammer was used inconsistently with original driving conditions, and that pre-record hammer drops would have broken pile bond and undervalued skin friction values reported by Engineer B.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial_peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Independent Geotechnical Litigation Observer
sourcetext: An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test.
textreferences: An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test.
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test
textreferences: the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
textreferences: this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.282095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Independent Geotechnical Consultant Observer Completeness Testimony
type: IndependentGeotechnicalObservationCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Independent Geotechnical Observation Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: The independent geotechnical consultant retained by Engineer A demonstrated the capability to provide complete and objective testimony about all material observations — including dynamic test equipment failure, methodological deviations (vibratory hammer substitution, insufficient penetration depth, pre-record hammer drops) — regardless of which party retained them.
casecontext: The independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test pile driving supervised by Engineer B, and provided complete testimony about all material methodological deviations and equipment failures observed.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test, that test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration, and that pre-record hammer drops would have broken pile bond and undervalued skin friction values
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:49.302529+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Independent Geotechnical Consultant
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests
textreferences: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Legal_Deposition_Conduct_Standard_Forensic
type: LegalDepositionConductStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: Legal and professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Legal Deposition and Litigation Conduct Standard for Forensic Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Legal Deposition Conduct Standard
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
usedby: Engineer A in navigating obligations during active settlement negotiations
usedincontext: Provides normative context for Engineer A's obligations regarding factual transparency and the distinction between reporting facts and characterizing professional judgments in the context of pending litigation and settlement negotiations
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.279207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Legal Process Integrity Compromised
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Do_Not_Participate_In_Deception_Of_Legal_Process_Constraint
activates constraint: Engineer_Duty_To_Legal_System_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Interest_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: The legal proceeding enters a compromised state; every negotiation step taken without correction deepens the compromise; Engineer A's silence, if prolonged, transitions from omission to complicity
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Act_Before_Settlement_Concludes_Obligation
creates obligation: Protect_Integrity_Of_Legal_Proceeding_Obligation
emergency status: high
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: From the moment data inaccuracy is discovered while negotiations are ongoing; persists until disclosure is made
temporal sequence: 12
urgency level: high
comment: With inaccurate expert conclusions actively influencing ongoing settlement negotiations, the integrity of the legal proceeding is objectively compromised, parties are negotiating based on false premises without their knowledge.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Municipality Litigation Client
type: LitigationDisputeMunicipalityClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Public municipal client and litigation party', 'settlement_contribution': '$300,000 shared with Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Municipal government that originally retained Engineer A to design the dock foundation; co-defendant with Engineer A in contractor litigation; shared $300,000 settlement cost; retained Engineer B to supervise test pile driving to support its litigation position; brought in expert witnesses during mediation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'defendant', 'target': 'Contractor Claimant'}
relationships: {'type': 'retaining_party', 'target': 'Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Litigation Dispute Municipality Client
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock
textreferences: Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000.
textreferences: Engineer A and the municipality were both sued by the contractor.
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock
textreferences: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.282386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
textreferences: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Implicitly invoked as the normative foundation for the Board's conclusions about Engineer A's affirmative obligation to disclose discovered inaccuracies and Engineer B's duty of honesty, integrity, and completeness in forensic expert practice
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.281107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
usedby: Engineer A in determining professional obligations upon discovering data inaccuracy
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to disclose discovered data inaccuracies to Attorney X and correct the forensic report, grounded in duties of honesty, objectivity, and public safety
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.278788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Omit Dynamic Test Equipment Failure
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer / Expert retained by municipality
foreseen unintended effects: Legal proceedings and opposing parties would rely on test results without knowing the equipment had failed
foreseen unintended effects: The reliability and validity of the entire testing program would be misrepresented
guided by principle text: Honesty in reporting testing conditions and results
guided by principle text: Objectivity and completeness as core forensic engineering standards
guided by principle text: Transparency regarding limitations of engineering analysis and testing
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Present test results as valid and reliable in support of the conclusion that 19 piles were deficient, without disclosing the equipment failure that compromised the testing
requires capability text: Dynamic pile testing methodology
requires capability text: Geotechnical engineering judgment regarding test validity
requires capability text: Recognition and documentation of equipment failures during testing
temporal marker: During report preparation in BER Case 95-5 parallel, before report issuance
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Duty of completeness and accuracy in professional engineering reports
violates obligation text: Duty to the integrity of the legal process
violates obligation text: Obligation not to present test results without disclosing known factors that compromise their reliability
violates obligation text: Obligation to disclose material limitations and failures in testing methodology
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B chose not to disclose in the report that the dynamic test equipment had failed during the pile testing, a material fact that undermined the reliability of the test results upon which the report's conclusions were based. This omission was a deliberate professional decision affecting the completeness and accuracy of the report.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Omit Dynamic Test Equipment Failure (Action 6) + Decline to Consult Available Witnesses (Action 7) → Precedent Case Ethical Violation Established (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B chose not to disclose in the report that the dynamic test equipment had failed during the [testing] and made a deliberate decision not to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, together these omissions reinforce the pattern of selective data use underlying the ethical violation in BER Case 95-5
cause: Omit Dynamic Test Equipment Failure (Action 6) + Decline to Consult Available Witnesses (Action 7)
counterfactual: Had Engineer B disclosed the equipment failure and consulted available witnesses, the report would have been grounded in a more complete evidentiary basis; the ethical violation finding would have been substantially weakened or negated
effect: Precedent Case Ethical Violation Established (Event 6)
necessary factors: Availability of witnesses who could have provided material factual information
necessary factors: Engineer B's deliberate choice to exclude both the equipment failure disclosure and witness consultation
necessary factors: Engineer B's knowledge of the equipment failure and its potential effect on test data reliability
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Omission of equipment failure + refusal to consult available witnesses, when combined with the pile driving record omission (Action 5), are together sufficient to establish a pattern of deliberate selective presentation constituting an ethical violation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Precedent Case Ethical Violation Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Completeness_Of_Expert_Reports_Constraint
activates constraint: Duty_To_Consult_Available_Evidence_Constraint
activates constraint: No_Selective_Use_Of_Data_Constraint
causes state change: A formal ethical standard is established through Board precedent: forensic engineers must provide complete, accurate, and unconflicted reports; selective or incomplete reporting constitutes egregious ethical violation; this precedent is now available to govern Engineer A's situation
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Disclose_All_Material_Information_In_Expert_Reports_Obligation
creates obligation: Future_Engineers_Must_Provide_Complete_Accurate_Reports_Obligation
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior case; introduced in Discussion section as precedent; temporally antecedent to current case
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: In the parallel BER Case 95-5, Engineer B's selective data use, omission of critical information (including dynamic test equipment failure), and failure to consult available witnesses was formally condemned by the Board as an egregious ethical violation, establishing precedent applicable to Engineer A's situation.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Professional_Report_Integrity_Standard_Forensic
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Report Integrity Standard — Forensic Engineering Context
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating obligations regarding the submitted forensic report
usedincontext: Establishes the obligation of Engineer A to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the forensic report submitted to Attorney X, including the duty to correct the record when inaccurate data is discovered before legal proceedings conclude
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.279067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Professional_Responsibility_Acknowledgment_Standard_Instance
type: ProfessionalResponsibilityAcknowledgmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering community through collective norm development
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard — Forensic Report Correction
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:31:48.712298+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
usedby: Engineer A upon discovering inaccurate data underlying forensic report conclusions
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to acknowledge the data inaccuracy discovered post-report submission, notify Attorney X, and take corrective action by revising conclusions, even during active settlement negotiations
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.278928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard — Forensic Expert Context
type: ProfessionalResponsibilityAcknowledgmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE professional ethics consensus
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard as Applied to Forensic Engineering Experts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's post-discovery obligations
usedincontext: Applied to Engineer A's obligation to immediately advise Attorney X upon discovering that the data underlying his report conclusions was inaccurate and that more accurate data would have led to different conclusions, establishing the affirmative duty to correct and disclose even during active settlement negotiations
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.281416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A's obligation to disclose the data inaccuracy extend beyond Attorney X to the court, the opposing party, or the public, particularly given that the erroneous report may have already influenced settlement negotiations in ways that could harm third parties?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: What are Engineer A's obligations if Attorney X, upon being informed of the data inaccuracy, instructs Engineer A to suppress the corrected findings and proceed with the original report during settlement negotiations?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the timing of Engineer A's discovery — after submission but before settlement conclusion — create a heightened urgency that would not exist if the error were discovered after final settlement, and does that temporal distinction carry independent ethical weight?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: To what extent does Engineer A bear responsibility for the initial use of inaccurate data — that is, should the Board have examined whether Engineer A's original investigative methodology was itself deficient, and whether that deficiency constitutes a separate ethical violation independent of the disclosure obligation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation toward Attorney X conflict with the Truthfulness Obligation and Public Welfare Paramount principle when Attorney X's litigation interests are best served by the original — now known to be inaccurate — report remaining in circulation during settlement negotiations?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.015946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Adversarial Context Non-Exemption principle — which holds that the adversarial nature of litigation does not relieve Engineer A of objectivity duties — conflict with the Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition when full corrective disclosure materially harms the client's negotiating position and potentially reduces the injured party's settlement recovery?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Honesty in Professional Representations principle conflict with the Faithful Agent Obligation when the scope of Engineer A's engagement is defined by Attorney X's litigation strategy, raising the question of whether Engineer A's duty of honesty runs primarily to the retaining attorney, to the legal process, or to the public at large?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation conflict with the Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context principle in cases where immediate disclosure of the inaccuracy could itself compromise the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings — for example, by triggering premature termination of negotiations before the corrected analysis can be properly prepared and reviewed?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of truthfulness by immediately disclosing the data inaccuracy to Attorney X, regardless of whether that disclosure might harm the client's settlement position?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the potential harm to Attorney X's client from a weakened settlement position outweigh the systemic harm to legal process integrity that would result from Engineer A allowing an inaccurate forensic report to remain uncorrected during active negotiations?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of intellectual honesty and integrity by treating the obligation to correct the erroneous report as non-negotiable, even when the adversarial settlement context created pressure to remain silent?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.016843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's role as a faithful agent to Attorney X create a competing duty that could ever legitimately delay or suppress the obligation to disclose a discovered data inaccuracy, or does the duty of truthfulness categorically override the faithful agent duty in forensic expert contexts?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had discovered the data inaccuracy before submitting the report rather than after, would the ethical obligation to disclose have been identical in character and urgency, or does the post-submission timing create a qualitatively distinct and more demanding corrective obligation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had disclosed the data inaccuracy immediately and the corrected conclusions had materially weakened Attorney X's settlement position, resulting in a less favorable outcome for the injured client, would that adverse consequence retroactively undermine the ethical correctness of Engineer A's disclosure decision?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If settlement negotiations had already concluded and a settlement agreement had been signed before Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy, would Engineer A's ethical obligations to disclose the error extend beyond Attorney X to include the court, the opposing party, or the public, and would those obligations differ in scope from the pre-settlement disclosure duty?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had chosen to remain silent about the data inaccuracy on the grounds that the attorney-client relationship imposed a duty of confidentiality, would that confidentiality rationale constitute a legitimate ethical defense under the NSPE Code, or would it represent a misapplication of the faithful agent principle that the Code's truthfulness provisions categorically foreclose?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Report Successfully Submitted
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accuracy_Of_Public_Statements_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: Report is now in Attorney X's possession; conclusions are active in the legal proceeding; Engineer A's professional credibility is formally attached to the document
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Correct_Errors_If_Discovered_Obligation
creates obligation: Monitor_Report_Accuracy_Obligation
creates obligation: Support_Attorney_With_Accurate_Information_Obligation
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After forensic investigation is complete; before settlement negotiations begin
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer A's written forensic report with conclusions is received by Attorney X, formally entering the legal record and initiating its use in settlement negotiations.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.018022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.012967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.013020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:04:36.017993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Settlement Negotiations Commenced
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accuracy_Of_Expert_Evidence_Constraint
activates constraint: Do_Not_Mislead_Legal_Proceedings_Constraint
causes state change: Report conclusions are now actively influencing a live legal negotiation; any inaccuracy in the report is no longer merely a professional error but a potential corruption of the legal process; time pressure on error correction intensifies
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Ensure_Report_Remains_Accurate_While_In_Active_Use_Obligation
emergency status: medium
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After report submission; before settlement is concluded
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: medium
comment: Attorney X enters formal settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney, using Engineer A's submitted report as a foundational document, creating a live legal proceeding dependent on the report's accuracy.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Submit Report to Attorney
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer / Forensic Expert
foreseen unintended effects: If conclusions are later found to be flawed, the report could mislead the legal process
foreseen unintended effects: Report will be relied upon by Attorney X in settlement negotiations
fulfills obligation text: Delivered professional report as contracted
fulfills obligation text: Provided written conclusions as required by the engagement
guided by principle text: Completeness and accuracy of engineering findings
guided by principle text: Honesty and truthfulness in professional reports
guided by principle text: Integrity in litigation support services
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Deliver professional findings to Attorney X to support the litigation and potential settlement negotiations on behalf of the injured client
requires capability text: Clear communication of engineering conclusions
requires capability text: Technical report writing
requires capability text: Understanding of litigation report standards
temporal marker: After investigation, before settlement negotiations conclude
temporal sequence: 7
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A prepares and submits the written forensic report, including conclusions about the cause of the accident, to Attorney X for use in litigation. This is a definitive professional act that places the report into the legal process.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.297817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Wave Equation Pile Analysis — BER Case 95-5 Application
type: WaveEquationPileAnalysisMethodology
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Geotechnical engineering professional consensus
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Accepted Wave Equation Calculations for Pile Driving Resistance
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:50.998834+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Wave Equation Pile Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
usedby: Engineer A's geotechnical consultant and referenced by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Referenced as the accepted technical methodology that Engineer B failed to apply when evaluating the 19 piles; had Engineer B applied wave equation calculations to the pile driving records showing driving to essential refusal, the piles would have indicated strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements, materially changing the expert conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.281285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.115685+00:00
value: Adversarial context non-exemption principle establishes that the engineer's duty of accuracy and correction applies with equal force in litigation as in non-adversarial contexts; the attorney controls litigation strategy but the engineer controls professional report integrity

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.115789+00:00
value: Forensic report integrity obligation superseded client loyalty and adversarial context — the engineer could not allow an inaccurate report to influence settlement negotiations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116362+00:00
value: Forensic report integrity obligation superseded client loyalty and adversarial context — the engineer could not allow an inaccurate report to influence settlement negotiations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118402+00:00
value: Adversarial context non-exemption principle establishes that the engineer's duty of accuracy and correction applies with equal force in litigation as in non-adversarial contexts; the attorney controls litigation strategy but the engineer controls professional report integrity

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117316+00:00
value: The adversarial litigation context creates pressure to preserve the original report's conclusions for strategic reasons, but this pressure does not constitute an ethical justification for allowing a known inaccuracy to remain uncorrected in an operative professional document

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116974+00:00
value: Adversarial context non-exemption principle establishes that the engineer's duty of accuracy and correction applies with equal force in litigation as in non-adversarial contexts; the attorney controls litigation strategy but the engineer controls professional report integrity

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117028+00:00
value: The active status of Attorney X's settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney did not justify Engineer A deferring, suppressing, or withholding correction of the discovered material data inaccuracy — the adversarial settlement context was not a permissible basis for delaying correction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116509+00:00
value: The error acknowledgment obligation is not overridden by the adversarial context or the engineer's relational duty to the retaining attorney; the attorney must be informed so that the attorney can make an informed decision about how to proceed with corrected information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118281+00:00
value: Faithful agency and truthfulness are aligned in this context — both require disclosure to Attorney X; the faithful agent obligation does not extend to concealing known errors that could expose the attorney and client to adverse consequences if the inaccuracy is later discovered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117145+00:00
value: Faithful agency to the retaining attorney is best served by immediate disclosure of discovered errors — the attorney's true interest is in accurate professional advice, not in a report the engineer knows to be inaccurate; concealment would ultimately disserve the attorney's interests

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116853+00:00
value: Faithful agency and truthfulness are aligned in this context — both require disclosure to Attorney X; the faithful agent obligation does not extend to concealing known errors that could expose the attorney and client to adverse consequences if the inaccuracy is later discovered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118455+00:00
value: Forensic report integrity obligation superseded client loyalty and adversarial context — the engineer could not allow an inaccurate report to influence settlement negotiations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118334+00:00
value: The obligation to correct and disclose superseded any concern about disadvantaging the client's negotiating position — the engineer's duty of truthfulness is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117254+00:00
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Attorney X does not extend to withholding or suppressing the discovered data inaccuracy from Attorney X — the faithful agent duty is bounded by the overriding obligation to be objective, truthful, and non-deceptive

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116906+00:00
value: The obligation to correct and disclose superseded any concern about disadvantaging the client's negotiating position — the engineer's duty of truthfulness is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118173+00:00
value: Adversarial context non-exemption principle establishes that the engineer's duty of accuracy and correction applies with equal force in litigation as in non-adversarial contexts; the attorney controls litigation strategy but the engineer controls professional report integrity

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.115549+00:00
value: The obligation to correct and disclose superseded any concern about disadvantaging the client's negotiating position — the engineer's duty of truthfulness is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116434+00:00
value: Honesty obligation supersedes client loyalty and adversarial context pressures — the engineer's duty to truthful reporting is not subordinated by the retaining party's litigation interests

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117970+00:00
value: The post-submission error correction obligation was heightened by the active litigation context — since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations that may or may not have resulted in settlement, the corrected information was critically important for the attorney to possess before those negotiations concluded

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.115388+00:00
value: Faithful agency and truthfulness are aligned in this context — both require disclosure to Attorney X; the faithful agent obligation does not extend to concealing known errors that could expose the attorney and client to adverse consequences if the inaccuracy is later discovered

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118104+00:00
value: The obligation to correct and disclose superseded any concern about disadvantaging the client's negotiating position — the engineer's duty of truthfulness is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118023+00:00
value: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X and subsequently discovering that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate such that accurate data would produce materially different conclusions, was constrained to immediately advise Attorney X of the discovered inaccuracy — this obligation was not defeatable by the active status of settlement negotiations between Attorney X and the defendant's attorney

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116206+00:00
value: The obligation to correct and disclose superseded any concern about disadvantaging the client's negotiating position — the engineer's duty of truthfulness is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.115862+00:00
value: Objectivity obligation superseded faithful agent obligation — Engineer B could not serve as a faithful agent by producing a selectively incomplete report that misrepresented the technical reality

Defeasibility edge from concreteexpression
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117914+00:00
value: Engineer B assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality through selective use of data — omitting pile driving records showing piles were driven to essential refusal, omitting wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements, and failing to report equipment failure — thereby abandoning the non-advocate role required of forensic engineering experts

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116620+00:00
value: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's conduct as an 'egregious denial of duties' indicates that the scope limitation was not a valid defense — the materiality of the omitted evidence overrode the scope limitation as an ethical justification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.115961+00:00
value: The available evidence consultation obligation was not discharged by scope limitations — Engineer B's post-hoc admission that records were not reviewed 'because it was not in our scope of work' was found to be an inadequate justification

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118229+00:00
value: The adversarial legal context did not permit Engineer B to selectively present data favorable to the municipality while omitting material findings that would have supported Engineer A's position — the non-advocate obligation applied with full force in the mediation context

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117856+00:00
value: The Board found Engineer B's conduct to be an egregious violation — the adversarial context created no exemption from the obligation to present complete and objective technical findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116567+00:00
value: Objectivity obligation superseded faithful agent obligation — Engineer B could not serve as a faithful agent by producing a selectively incomplete report that misrepresented the technical reality

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116049+00:00
value: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's conduct as an 'egregious denial of duties' indicates that the scope limitation was not a valid defense — the materiality of the omitted evidence overrode the scope limitation as an ethical justification

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117609+00:00
value: The obligation to consult available evidence before rendering adverse opinions required Engineer B to contact Engineer A's representatives, review primary pile driving records, and inquire from workers — the scope-of-work limitation did not excuse this failure when the evidence was readily accessible

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116672+00:00
value: The available evidence consultation obligation was not discharged by scope limitations — Engineer B's post-hoc admission that records were not reviewed 'because it was not in our scope of work' was found to be an inadequate justification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118506+00:00
value: Objectivity obligation superseded faithful agent obligation — Engineer B could not serve as a faithful agent by producing a selectively incomplete report that misrepresented the technical reality

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.119116+00:00
value: The methodological consistency obligation required disclosure of all material departures regardless of their impact on the client's litigation position

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117529+00:00
value: The complete reporting obligation served the client's genuine long-term interests better than selective reporting — a complete report would have given the municipality stronger technical grounds to contest the contractor's claim

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116134+00:00
value: The methodological consistency obligation required disclosure of all material departures regardless of their impact on the client's litigation position

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117664+00:00
value: The obligation to ensure methodological consistency and disclose departures required Engineer B to report the equipment failure, the vibratory hammer substitution, and the pre-record hammer drops — all of which materially affected the validity of the skin friction measurements and the conclusions drawn from them

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116800+00:00
value: The methodological consistency obligation required disclosure of all material departures regardless of their impact on the client's litigation position

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117735+00:00
value: Engineer B was prohibited from offering mutually inconsistent explanations for the omission of pile driving records from the forensic report — first claiming the records were outside the scope of work, then claiming the records were not believed — establishing that the engineer must provide a single, consistent, and honest account of the basis for professional decisions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117789+00:00
value: The Board found Engineer B's conduct to be an egregious violation — the adversarial context created no exemption from the obligation to present complete and objective technical findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.116746+00:00
value: The Board found Engineer B's conduct to be an egregious violation — the adversarial context created no exemption from the obligation to present complete and objective technical findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118560+00:00
value: The available evidence consultation obligation was not discharged by scope limitations — Engineer B's post-hoc admission that records were not reviewed 'because it was not in our scope of work' was found to be an inadequate justification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.118626+00:00
value: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's conduct as an 'egregious denial of duties' indicates that the scope limitation was not a valid defense — the materiality of the omitted evidence overrode the scope limitation as an ethical justification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117374+00:00
value: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's conduct as an 'egregious denial of duties' indicates that the scope limitation was not a valid defense — the materiality of the omitted evidence overrode the scope limitation as an ethical justification

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:00:56.117440+00:00
value: The scope limitation defined the boundaries of required investigation but did not authorize Engineer B to omit from the report findings already within the engineer's knowledge or to avoid consulting readily available material evidence before rendering adverse conclusions

dock construction before contractor's extra claim and lawsuit
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Following construction, there was a contractor's extra claim and Engineer A and the municipality were both sued by the contractor.
from entity text: dock construction
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: contractor's extra claim and lawsuit
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: contractor s extra claim and lawsuit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

dynamic test equipment failure during test pile driving supervised by Engineer B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration.
from entity text: dynamic test equipment failure
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: test pile driving supervised by Engineer B
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: test pile driving supervised by Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

hammer dropped several times to start before record of blow counts commenced
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: After the 30-day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
from entity text: hammer dropped several times to start
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: record of blow counts commenced
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: record of blow counts commenced
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

initial pile driving before 30-day set-up period
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving-resistance requirements.
from entity text: initial pile driving
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: 30-day set-up period
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: 30-day set-up period
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

mediation before settlement of contractor claim for $300,000
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The claim was settled by mediation. Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000.
from entity text: mediation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: settlement of contractor claim for $300,000
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: settlement of contractor claim for 300 000
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A were to fail to disclose the discovered data inaccuracy to Attorney X, Engineer A would be committing a disservice to Attorney X — the retaining attorney would proceed with settlement negotiations on the basis of a report the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's forensic report, submitted to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, must be corrected when Engineer A discovers the underlying data was inaccurate — the report's operative status in ongoing settlement proceedings he

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional representations in the forensic report — including the conclusions regarding the cause of the accident — were made on the basis of data Engineer A subsequently discovered to be inaccurate; honesty in professional r

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's discovery that the forensic report conclusions would differ under accurate data creates an intellectual honesty obligation to acknowledge the error and its implications, rather than rationalizing the original conclusions or min

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that the data underlying the forensic report conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, faces an obligation of truthfulness that requires disclosure of this discovery to

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X and subsequently discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, is obligated to affirmatively acknowledge the error

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's forensic report remained operative during active settlement negotiations, and the discovery of inaccurate underlying data triggered an obligation to disclose to Attorney X and advocate for correction — even though doing so migh

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's role as a retained forensic expert for Attorney X creates a faithful agent obligation to serve Attorney X's interests — but this obligation is bounded by the ethical requirement to disclose discovered data inaccuracies, meaning

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The fact that Engineer A's forensic report was prepared in connection with pending litigation and that Attorney X is engaged in active settlement negotiations does not exempt Engineer A from the professional obligation to disclose discovere

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After submitting a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, Engineer A discovered that the data underlying the report conclusions was inaccurate — triggering an affirmative obligation to immediately advise Attorn

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The case establishes that professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation bear an ethical responsibility to perform their services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's obligation to render an objective technical assessment of pile adequacy required inclusion of all material technical findings — pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure — regardless of which party

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's selective data use as an 'egregious denial of duties' in 'any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal' reflects the fundamental principle that the public welfare obligation — including th

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure data did not acquire an adversarial character by virtue of being generated and evaluated within the mediation proceeding — Engineer B was required to treat these te

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's omission of pile driving records showing essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements not only violated duties to the profession, but also constituted a disservice to the municip

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, retained by the municipality in adversarial litigation, selectively omitted material technical findings — including pile driving records showing essential refusal, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure — that would h

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B rendered adverse opinions about the adequacy of 19 piles without consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives (who were available), without reviewing pile driving records, and without inquiring from contractors or workers — de

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B supervised test pile driving using a vibratory hammer not used in original driving, allowed pre-record hammer drops that broke pile bond and undervalued skin friction, and failed to report that dynamic test equipment had failed —

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality through selective use of data — omitting pile driving records showing piles were driven to essential refusal, omitting wave equation calculations showing strength multipl

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B invoked scope-of-work limitations as a justification for not reviewing pile driving records and not reporting equipment failure, while simultaneously rendering adverse conclusions about pile adequacy that the omitted evidence wou

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X and subsequently discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, is obligated to affirmatively acknowledge the error

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's discovery that the forensic report conclusions would differ under accurate data creates an intellectual honesty obligation to acknowledge the error and its implications, rather than rationalizing the original conclusions or min

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's forensic report, submitted to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, must be corrected when Engineer A discovers the underlying data was inaccurate — the report's operative status in ongoing settlement proceedings he

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The case establishes that professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation bear an ethical responsibility to perform their services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After submitting a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, Engineer A discovered that the data underlying the report conclusions was inaccurate — triggering an affirmative obligation to immediately advise Attorn

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that the data underlying the forensic report conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, faces an obligation of truthfulness that requires disclosure of this discovery to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The fact that Engineer A's forensic report was prepared in connection with pending litigation and that Attorney X is engaged in active settlement negotiations does not exempt Engineer A from the professional obligation to disclose discovere

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The fact that Engineer A's forensic report was prepared in connection with pending litigation and that Attorney X is engaged in active settlement negotiations does not exempt Engineer A from the professional obligation to disclose discovere

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional representations in the forensic report — including the conclusions regarding the cause of the accident — were made on the basis of data Engineer A subsequently discovered to be inaccurate; honesty in professional r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's forensic report remained operative during active settlement negotiations, and the discovery of inaccurate underlying data triggered an obligation to disclose to Attorney X and advocate for correction — even though doing so migh

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that the data underlying the forensic report conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, faces an obligation of truthfulness that requires disclosure of this discovery to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's role as a retained forensic expert for Attorney X creates a faithful agent obligation to serve Attorney X's interests — but this obligation is bounded by the ethical requirement to disclose discovered data inaccuracies, meaning

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The fact that Engineer A's forensic report was prepared in connection with pending litigation and that Attorney X is engaged in active settlement negotiations does not exempt Engineer A from the professional obligation to disclose discovere

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's role as a retained forensic expert for Attorney X creates a faithful agent obligation to serve Attorney X's interests — but this obligation is bounded by the ethical requirement to disclose discovered data inaccuracies, meaning

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's selective data use as an 'egregious denial of duties' in 'any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal' reflects the fundamental principle that the public welfare obligation — including th

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure data did not acquire an adversarial character by virtue of being generated and evaluated within the mediation proceeding — Engineer B was required to treat these te

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's obligation to render an objective technical assessment of pile adequacy required inclusion of all material technical findings — pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure — regardless of which party

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B rendered adverse opinions about the adequacy of 19 piles without consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives (who were available), without reviewing pile driving records, and without inquiring from contractors or workers — de

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B supervised test pile driving using a vibratory hammer not used in original driving, allowed pre-record hammer drops that broke pile bond and undervalued skin friction, and failed to report that dynamic test equipment had failed —

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality through selective use of data — omitting pile driving records showing piles were driven to essential refusal, omitting wave equation calculations showing strength multipl

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, retained by the municipality in adversarial litigation, selectively omitted material technical findings — including pile driving records showing essential refusal, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure — that would h

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B invoked scope-of-work limitations as a justification for not reviewing pile driving records and not reporting equipment failure, while simultaneously rendering adverse conclusions about pile adequacy that the omitted evidence wou

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's omission of pile driving records showing essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements not only violated duties to the profession, but also constituted a disservice to the municip

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's obligation to render an objective technical assessment of pile adequacy required inclusion of all material technical findings — pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure — regardless of which party

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must acknowledge to Attorney X that the forensic report submitted contains conclusions based on inaccurate data, and must communicate the nature of the inaccuracy, the corrected data, and the conclusions that would result from us

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a retained forensic expert in litigation, must render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on accurate data — and upon discovering that the data underlying the submitted report was inaccurate, must corr

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The case establishes that professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation bear an ethical responsibility to perform their services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from providing contradictory explanations for the omission of pile driving records from the forensic report — first stating the records were not reviewed because it was 'not in our scope of work,' then su

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to perform forensic engineering services with honesty and integrity and to refrain from assuming a responsibility to defend the retaining municipality client through selective use of data — conduct the Board charact

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to include all material technical findings in the forensic report — including pile driving records showing that the 19 piles had been driven to essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to consult all reasonably available evidence — including pile driving records, Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — before publishing adverse conclusions about the adequacy of the 19 pile

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to use methods, equipment, and procedures that faithfully replicated the original pile driving conditions — including the same hammer type and penetration depth requirements — and to disclose in the report all mater

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of all available facts — including pile driving records and wave equation calculations — functioning as an assistant to t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was prohibited from invoking scope-of-work limitations as justification for omitting pile driving records from the forensic report, as those records were readily available and directly relevant to the conclusions being drawn abou

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from producing a forensic report that selectively omitted pile driving records and wave equation calculations in a manner that disserved the municipality client's actual interests — recognizing that selec

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations and subsequently discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, was obligated

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, retained in an adversarial litigation context, must produce reports and technical opinions that are complete and non-selective — including correcting the submitted forensic report upon discovering that the underlying data was in

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain objectivity and render technically complete and accurate opinions — including correcting the forensic report upon discovering data inaccuracy — regardless of the adversarial context and active settlement

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must be objective and truthful in the forensic report submitted to Attorney X, and upon discovering that the report's conclusions were based on inaccurate data, must correct the report to include accurate data and the conclusions

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations and subsequently discovering that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different co

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must recognize that the faithful agent obligation owed to Attorney X does not extend to withholding the discovered data inaccuracy from Attorney X, and that disclosing the inaccuracy and corrected conclusions — even though advers

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must recognize that the active status of Attorney X's settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney does not exempt Engineer A from the obligation to correct the forensic report upon discovering that the underlying data w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Attorney X did not extend to suppressing or withholding correction of the discovered data inaccuracy in the submitted forensic report; correcting the report constituted the highest form of faithful

settlement negotiations overlaps Engineer A's obligation to notify Attorney X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney... this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
from entity text: settlement negotiations
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Engineer A's obligation to notify Attorney X
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Engineer A s obligation to notify Attorney X
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

test pile driving before 30-day set confirmation of strength gain
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The test piles were driven and after a 30-day set, the increase in set-up strength with time was confirmed.
from entity text: test pile driving
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: 30-day set confirmation of strength gain
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: 30-day set confirmation of strength gain
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.298598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Deferral of Forensic Report Correction
type: AdversarialSettlementContextForensicReportCorrectionNon-DeferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney when Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy; the settlement outcome was uncertain and the corrective information was material to the negotiating position
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Adversarial Settlement Context Forensic Report Correction Non-Deferral Constraint
constraintstatement: The active status of Attorney X's settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney did not justify Engineer A deferring, suppressing, or withholding correction of the discovered material data inaccuracy — the adversarial settlement context was not a permissible basis for delaying correction, and the critically important nature of the corrective information for the negotiating attorney made immediate disclosure non-negotiable regardless of the potential impact on the settlement outcome.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
temporalscope: During the period of active settlement negotiations following Engineer A's discovery of the data inaccuracy
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.293819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary Non-Suppression of Error Correction Constraint Instance
type: ForensicExpertFaithfulAgentBoundaryNon-SuppressionofErrorCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X as a forensic expert and owes faithful agent duties, but discovers post-submission that the report's conclusions are based on inaccurate data — creating tension between faithful agency and the duty to correct
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary Non-Suppression of Error Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Attorney X does not extend to withholding or suppressing the discovered data inaccuracy from Attorney X — the faithful agent duty is bounded by the overriding obligation to be objective, truthful, and non-deceptive, requiring Engineer A to advise Attorney X of the error and correct the report.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:36:51.811680+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4 (faithful agent), II.3.a (objectivity), II.5.a (non-deception); BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
temporalscope: From discovery of data inaccuracy through completion of corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.286782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Submission Data Inaccuracy Immediate Correction Constraint — Attorney X Settlement Context
type: Post-SubmissionForensicReportDataInaccuracyCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report to Attorney X in connection with civil litigation; during active settlement negotiations, Engineer A discovered that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would produce materially different conclusions
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X and subsequently discovering that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate such that accurate data would produce materially different conclusions, was constrained to immediately advise Attorney X of the discovered inaccuracy — this obligation was not defeatable by the active status of settlement negotiations between Attorney X and the defendant's attorney, and the critically important nature of the corrective information for Attorney X's negotiating position made immediate disclosure non-negotiable.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the data inaccuracy, regardless of the procedural posture of the litigation or settlement negotiations
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.293462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Professional Justification Non-Issuance Constraint — Scope vs. Disbelief
type: ContradictoryProfessionalJustificationNon-IssuanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: When Engineer A queried Engineer B about the omission of pile driving records, Engineer B first stated the records were not in the scope of work, then stated the records were not believed because they looked suspicious — two mutually inconsistent explanations for the same omission
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Contradictory Professional Justification Non-Issuance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from offering mutually inconsistent explanations for the omission of pile driving records from the forensic report — first claiming the records were outside the scope of work, then claiming the records were not believed — establishing that the engineer must provide a single, consistent, and honest account of the basis for professional decisions, and that offering contradictory justifications constitutes an artfully misleading statement violating the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception provisions.
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:43:22.410790+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, II.5; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate'
temporalscope: When queried by Engineer A after the forensic report was issued
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.294645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition Invoked in Engineer A Forensic Error Context
type: ClientDisserviceThroughIncompleteReportingProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Attorney X's settlement negotiations
appliedto: Forensic report relied upon in settlement
balancingwith: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: If Engineer A were to fail to disclose the discovered data inaccuracy to Attorney X, Engineer A would be committing a disservice to Attorney X — the retaining attorney would proceed with settlement negotiations on the basis of a report the engineer knows to be inaccurate, potentially resulting in a settlement that does not reflect the true technical merits of the case and exposing the attorney to professional risk if the error is later discovered
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on disserving clients through incomplete or inaccurate reporting applies to post-submission discoveries as well as to initial report preparation — allowing the attorney to proceed on the basis of a known error is a form of disservice that violates the engineer's duty to the retaining party
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
tensionresolution: Disclosure of the error serves rather than conflicts with the client's true interests; the attorney is better positioned to manage the litigation with accurate information than with a report the engineer knows to be wrong
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.285266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Report Active Litigation Reliance
type: ForensicReportActiveLitigationRelianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of Engineer A's report through the point at which Attorney X is advised of the data inaccuracy
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Defendant's attorney
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Opposing party
affectedparties: Settlement process
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case
stateclass: Forensic Report Active Litigation Reliance State
subject: Engineer A's forensic report being actively relied upon by Attorney X in ongoing settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney
terminatedby: Engineer A's immediate disclosure to Attorney X of the data inaccuracy and its effect on the report's conclusions
textreferences: Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
triggeringevent: Attorney X's active use of Engineer A's submitted forensic report as the basis for settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.283649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discovering Engineer
type: ForensicReportErrorDiscoveringEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Honesty and Integrity Obligation of Forensic Engineering Experts
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Forensic engineering / mechanical product failure analysis', 'report_status': 'Submitted to retaining attorney prior to error discovery', 'error_nature': 'Inaccurate foundational data leading to potentially incorrect conclusions'}
caseinvolvement: Performed forensic engineering investigation of a mechanical product failure, prepared and submitted a written report with conclusions to Attorney X, and subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would have led to different conclusions — during active settlement negotiations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:31:45.103093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:31:45.103093+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Attorney X Client (injured party)'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Report Error Discovering Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
textreferences: if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.278462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination
type: AdversarialExpertEngagementWithoutPeerCoordinationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer B's investigation and report preparation period
affectedparties: Adversarial proceeding parties
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's on-site representatives
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
stateclass: Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination State
subject: Engineer B's conduct of the forensic pile evaluation without any communication with Engineer A or Engineer A's representatives, despite their availability
terminatedby: Not resolved during report preparation; Engineer A queried Engineer B only after the report was issued
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
triggeringevent: Engineer B's retention by the municipality to evaluate pile adequacy in an adversarial proceeding involving Engineer A, without any coordination with or notification to Engineer A
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.283801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Available Witness Non-Consultation
type: AvailableWitnessNon-ConsultationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the period of Engineer B's investigation and report preparation
affectedparties: Adversarial proceeding parties
affectedparties: Contractors and workers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's on-site representatives
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
stateclass: Available Witness Non-Consultation State
subject: Engineer B's failure to consult Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, or workers before finalizing the forensic report
terminatedby: Not resolved; report was submitted without consultation
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
triggeringevent: Engineer B proceeding to finalize and submit a report containing theories about why 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth without consulting available on-site representatives who could have verified or refuted those theories
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.282874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Compromised Test Condition Replication
type: CompromisedTestConditionReplicationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the test pile driving supervised by Engineer B and through the preparation of Engineer B's report relying on those test results
affectedparties: Adversarial proceeding parties
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's geotechnical consultant
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
stateclass: Compromised Test Condition Replication State
subject: Engineer B's supervision of test pile driving under conditions materially different from the original pile driving conditions
terminatedby: Not resolved; Engineer B's report treated the test results as applicable to the original piles without disclosing the condition differences
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Also, after the 30-day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced.
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
triggeringevent: Test pile driving conducted using a vibratory hammer (not used in original driving), with dynamic test equipment failure, and with the driving hammer dropped several times before blow count records commenced — conditions materially different from the original pile driving
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.283315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Scope Justification for Omitting Driving Records
type: ContradictoryScopeJustificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer B was queried by Engineer A after report issuance through the conclusion of the proceeding
affectedparties: Adversarial proceeding parties
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
stateclass: Contradictory Scope Justification State
subject: Engineer B's inconsistent explanations for omitting pile driving records from the forensic report
terminatedby: Not resolved within the described facts
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate... The driving records look suspicious.'
triggeringevent: Engineer A's post-report query to Engineer B about the omission of pile driving records, which elicited two mutually inconsistent justifications
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.283059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Selective Information Omission in Pile Report
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of Engineer B's report through the conclusion of the adversarial proceeding
affectedparties: Adversarial proceeding parties
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer B's forensic report omitting pile driving records showing refusal, wave equation calculations, and dynamic test equipment failure
terminatedby: Not resolved within the described facts
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
triggeringevent: Engineer B's submission of a forensic report that omitted material technical information — pile driving records indicating refusal at depth, accepted wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements, and the failure of dynamic test equipment — that would have materially altered the report's conclusions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.284139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Expert Engagement
type: AdversarialProceedingFactPolarizationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention by Attorney X through conclusion of settlement negotiations
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X's client
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Defendant's attorney
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client
stateclass: Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
subject: Engineer A operating as forensic expert within adversarial settlement proceeding where report conclusions are being used to advance one party's position
terminatedby: Settlement concluded or Engineer A's engagement formally ended
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client
triggeringevent: Attorney X retains Engineer A as forensic expert in pending litigation involving mechanical product failure and personal injury
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.280619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Duties — Truthfulness vs. Attorney Reliance
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery of data inaccuracy through resolution by notification or proceeding conclusion
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X's client
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public relying on integrity of engineering expert reports
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous duty of truthfulness and accuracy (requiring correction of the erroneous report) and duty of faithful agency to retaining attorney (whose settlement strategy relies on the submitted report)
terminatedby: Engineer A notifies Attorney X and issues corrected conclusions, resolving the tension in favor of truthfulness obligation
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
textreferences: if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
triggeringevent: Engineer A discovers data inaccuracy in submitted report while Attorney X is in active settlement negotiations relying on that report
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.280287
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Report Submitted — Data Error Discovered
type: Post-SubmissionReportErrorDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A discovers the data inaccuracy, continuing through the active settlement negotiations
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X's client (injured party)
affectedparties: Court or settlement authority
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Defendant's attorney
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
stateclass: Post-Submission Report Error Discovery State
subject: Engineer A's forensic report submitted to Attorney X, now known to be based on inaccurate data with materially different correct conclusions
terminatedby: Engineer A notifying Attorney X of the error and issuing corrected conclusions, or conclusion of settlement proceedings
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
triggeringevent: Engineer A discovers that the data underlying the submitted report's conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.279534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Submission Report Error Discovery
type: Post-SubmissionReportErrorDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A discovered the data inaccuracy through the time Engineer A advises Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Court or mediating authority
affectedparties: Defendant's attorney
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Opposing party in litigation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
stateclass: Post-Submission Report Error Discovery State
subject: Engineer A's discovery that the data underlying Engineer A's forensic report conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would produce materially different conclusions
terminatedby: Engineer A's affirmative disclosure to Attorney X of the data inaccuracy and its effect on conclusions
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's discovery that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that use of more accurate data would yield different conclusions, while Attorney X was in the middle of settlement negotiations
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.283482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Contradictory Professional Explanation Scope vs Disbelief Violation
type: ContradictoryProfessionalExplanationNon-IssuanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Contradictory Scope Justification for Omitting Driving Records
casecontext: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued, Engineer B provided two contradictory explanations for not reviewing pile driving records: first that it was not in the scope of work, and then that the records were not believed because they 'look suspicious.' These explanations are mutually incompatible — scope limitation implies the records were not consulted at all, while disbelief implies they were consulted and rejected.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Objectivity Obligation of Engineer B in Pile Adequacy Assessment
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from providing contradictory explanations for the omission of pile driving records from the forensic report — first stating the records were not reviewed because it was 'not in our scope of work,' then substituting the incompatible explanation that the records were not believed — recognizing that contradictory post-hoc justifications violate professional honesty obligations.
sourcetext: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
temporalscope: When queried by Engineer A after the forensic report was issued
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
textreferences: When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.292236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Selective Data Omission in Pile Report
type: Client-AlignedAdvocacyDisplacingObjectiveReportingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer B prepared and submitted the report through the conclusion of the adversarial proceeding
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Contractor (opposing party)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality (retaining client)
affectedparties: Public relying on accurate forensic testimony
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
stateclass: Client-Aligned Advocacy Displacing Objective Reporting State
subject: Engineer B's forensic report on 19 piles in the dock foundation litigation
terminatedby: Not resolved within the described facts; proceeding ongoing
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
triggeringevent: Engineer B's preparation and submission of a forensic report that omitted pile driving records showing refusal, wave equation calculations indicating adequate strength, and the failure of dynamic test equipment — while concluding that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.282706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Forensic Report Active in Settlement Negotiations
type: ForensicReportActiveLitigationRelianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the written report through conclusion of settlement negotiations
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Attorney X's client
affectedparties: Defendant
affectedparties: Defendant's attorney
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:16.237756+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
stateclass: Forensic Report Active Litigation Reliance State
subject: Engineer A's submitted forensic report being relied upon by Attorney X during active settlement negotiations
terminatedby: Settlement concluded or report formally corrected or withdrawn
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Following Engineer A's investigation and Engineer A submitting the report to Attorney X, but before the settlement negotiations are concluded
triggeringevent: Engineer A submits written report to Attorney X; Attorney X enters settlement negotiations relying on report conclusions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.280103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context Invoked by Engineer A
type: ForensicReportIntegrityinActiveLitigationContext
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Active settlement negotiations between Attorney X and defendant's attorney
appliedto: Forensic report submitted to Attorney X
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Relational duty to retaining attorney
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's forensic report, submitted to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, must be corrected when Engineer A discovers the underlying data was inaccurate — the report's operative status in ongoing settlement proceedings heightens rather than diminishes the obligation to disclose and correct the error
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The combination of the report's operative status in settlement negotiations and the engineer's discovery of data inaccuracy creates an immediate and non-deferrable obligation to notify Attorney X — the engineer cannot allow the inaccurate report to serve as the factual basis for a settlement without disclosure of the discovered error
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
tensionresolution: The engineer's professional obligation to report integrity supersedes the relational interest in preserving the retaining party's litigation position; the attorney must be informed and given the opportunity to decide how to proceed with corrected information
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.284894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked by Engineer A in Forensic Report Correction
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic report conclusions submitted to Attorney X
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Relational duty to retaining attorney
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional representations in the forensic report — including the conclusions regarding the cause of the accident — were made on the basis of data Engineer A subsequently discovered to be inaccurate; honesty in professional representations requires Engineer A to correct those representations rather than allowing them to stand as accurate professional conclusions
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations is a continuing obligation that extends to the correction of representations discovered to be inaccurate after submission — the engineer cannot maintain the original conclusions as honest professional representations once the engineer knows the underlying data was wrong
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer A prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X
tensionresolution: Honesty requires correction; the engineer must notify Attorney X that the original conclusions cannot be maintained as accurate professional representations under the corrected data
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.285439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Intellectual Honesty Obligation Invoked by Engineer A in Forensic Report Correction
type: IntellectualHonesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic investigation conclusions
appliedto: Written report submitted to Attorney X
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Relational duty to retaining attorney
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's discovery that the forensic report conclusions would differ under accurate data creates an intellectual honesty obligation to acknowledge the error and its implications, rather than rationalizing the original conclusions or minimizing the significance of the data inaccuracy
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Intellectual honesty in the forensic engineering context requires the engineer to confront the full implications of discovered data inaccuracies — including that conclusions would be different — rather than seeking to preserve the original report through rationalization
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Intellectual Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
tensionresolution: Intellectual honesty requires full acknowledgment of the error and its directional impact on conclusions; this obligation is not diminished by the inconvenience the correction may cause to the retaining party's litigation position
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.284432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount in Forensic Engineering Expert Role
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic expert role in civil litigation and mediation
appliedto: Technical integrity of pile adequacy determination
balancingwith: Adversarial context pressures
balancingwith: Client loyalty to municipality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's selective data use as an 'egregious denial of duties' in 'any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal' reflects the fundamental principle that the public welfare obligation — including the integrity of the justice system and the reliability of technical expert testimony — supersedes the engineer's loyalty to the retaining party in forensic engagements
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public welfare principle in the forensic engineering context encompasses the integrity of the justice system — courts and mediators rely on engineering experts to provide objective technical truth, and selective data use corrupts that reliance relationship in a manner that harms public confidence in both the engineering profession and the legal system
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation — including justice system integrity — superseded client loyalty; the adversarial context created no exemption
textreferences: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation.
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.290467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character in Pile Adequacy Mediation
type: TechnicalFactsNon-AdversarialCharacterPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Dynamic test equipment failure data
appliedto: Pile driving records and wave equation calculations in mediation context
balancingwith: Municipality's adversarial litigation interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure data did not acquire an adversarial character by virtue of being generated and evaluated within the mediation proceeding — Engineer B was required to treat these technical findings as objective data regardless of the legal context, refusing to allow the municipality's adversarial interests to transform the role of forensic expert into advocate for a preferred factual narrative
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The technical facts about pile adequacy — whether piles were driven to essential refusal, whether wave equation calculations showed adequate strength, whether equipment failed — were objective engineering data that did not change character based on which party they favored in the litigation
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character Principle
sourcetext: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
tensionresolution: Technical facts retained their objective character regardless of adversarial context — Engineer B's obligation was to report them accurately and completely
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.290783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction to Attorney X
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report and subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate. The professional obligation of error acknowledgment requires Engineer A to acknowledge this to Attorney X.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
derived from principle: Intellectual Honesty Obligation Invoked by Engineer A in Forensic Report Correction
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Error Acknowledgment (Obligation)
obligationstatement: Engineer A must acknowledge to Attorney X that the forensic report submitted contains conclusions based on inaccurate data, and must communicate the nature of the inaccuracy, the corrected data, and the conclusions that would result from use of accurate data — fulfilling the professional obligation of error acknowledgment established by the ethics code.
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
temporalscope: Promptly upon discovery of the data inaccuracy
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.286198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Submission Forensic Report Correction Obligation to Attorney X Settlement Context
type: Post-SubmissionForensicReportDataInaccuracyCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Forensic Report Active in Settlement Negotiations
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X to conduct a forensic investigation of a mechanical product failure. Engineer A submitted a report with conclusions. Subsequently, Engineer A discovered that the data underlying the report conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions. Attorney X was in the middle of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney at the time of discovery.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Engineer A Post-Submission Error Correction Obligation to Attorney X
derived from principle: Truthfulness Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Upon Discovery of Data Inaccuracy
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations and subsequently discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, was obligated to immediately and affirmatively advise Attorney X of the discovered inaccuracy and corrected conclusions, notwithstanding the active settlement negotiations.
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
temporalscope: Upon discovery that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield materially different conclusions
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.290929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting
type: ClientDisserviceThroughIncompleteReportingProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipality's litigation and mediation strategy
appliedto: Settlement of contractor's extra claim for $300,000
balancingwith: Short-term client preference for report supporting litigation position
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's omission of pile driving records showing essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements not only violated duties to the profession, but also constituted a disservice to the municipality client — because the incomplete report deprived the municipality of the opportunity to present a rational basis for discounting the 19-pile adequacy concern and may have contributed to an unfavorable settlement outcome
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The selective omission of material technical findings that would have supported a more favorable interpretation of pile adequacy disserved the municipality's own interests by presenting an incomplete technical picture that may have undermined the municipality's negotiating position
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
tensionresolution: The complete reporting obligation served the client's genuine long-term interests better than selective reporting — a complete report would have given the municipality stronger technical grounds to contest the contractor's claim
textreferences: Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.290313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Selective Data Defense Violation
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
prevails over: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality in adversarial litigation. The Board found that Engineer B assumed a responsibility to defend the municipality through selective use of data, omitting pile driving records showing essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements, and failing to report equipment failure. This was characterized as an egregious denial of professional duties.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount in Forensic Engineering Expert Role
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to perform forensic engineering services with honesty and integrity and to refrain from assuming a responsibility to defend the retaining municipality client through selective use of data — conduct the Board characterized as an egregious denial of professional duties in any setting, whether legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal.
sourcetext: the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic engagement including test pile supervision and report preparation
textreferences: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation. These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
textreferences: the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.292513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic report submitted to Attorney X
appliedto: Settlement negotiations in which the report is operative
balancingwith: Adversarial Context Non-Exemption from Professional Standards
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X and subsequently discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, is obligated to affirmatively acknowledge the error to Attorney X and take steps toward correction — including notifying Attorney X that the report conclusions are unreliable and that a corrected analysis is necessary — rather than suppressing or minimizing the discovered inaccuracy
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to acknowledge errors and pursue corrective disclosure applies with full force in the litigation forensic context — the engineer must notify the retaining attorney immediately, clearly communicate the directional impact of the error on conclusions, and advocate for correction before the inaccurate report influences the settlement outcome
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
tensionresolution: The error acknowledgment obligation is not overridden by the adversarial context or the engineer's relational duty to the retaining attorney; the attorney must be informed so that the attorney can make an informed decision about how to proceed with corrected information
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.284585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Honesty and Integrity Obligation of Forensic Engineering Experts
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic engineering expert services in civil litigation
appliedto: Pile foundation adequacy report
appliedto: Test pile driving report
balancingwith: Attorney-client relationship obligations
balancingwith: Client loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The case establishes that professional engineers serving as forensic experts in civil litigation bear an ethical responsibility to perform their services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports — a responsibility that applies equally to Engineer B's selective data use and Engineer A's obligation to correct discovered inaccuracies
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the forensic engineering context, honesty requires both completeness in initial reporting and prompt correction of discovered inaccuracies — the obligation is not discharged by submission of a report but continues as long as the report remains operative
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discovering Engineer
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports.
tensionresolution: Honesty obligation supersedes client loyalty and adversarial context pressures — the engineer's duty to truthful reporting is not subordinated by the retaining party's litigation interests
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.289011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Context Report Completeness Non-Selectivity
type: AdversarialContextReportCompletenessandNon-SelectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Exemption from Forensic Report Correction
casecontext: Engineer A's forensic report was prepared in connection with pending litigation. The adversarial context does not excuse Engineer A from correcting the report upon discovering data inaccuracy.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Adversarial Context Non-Exemption Invoked in Engineer A Forensic Report Correction
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Adversarial Context Report Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, retained in an adversarial litigation context, must produce reports and technical opinions that are complete and non-selective — including correcting the submitted forensic report upon discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate — recognizing that the adversarial context of the engagement does not diminish the professional obligation to objectivity and completeness, and that allowing an inaccurate report to stand without correction constitutes selective omission of material information regardless of the adversarial setting.
sourcetext: Part of Engineer A's duties is to perform forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the data inaccuracy, before settlement negotiations conclude
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
textreferences: Part of Engineer A's duties is to perform forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.286343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
type: AdversarialProceedingFactPolarizationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the adversarial proceeding in which Engineer B was retained as the municipality's expert
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Court or mediating authority
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Municipality
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:33:30.283707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
stateclass: Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
subject: The adversarial litigation context in which Engineer B was retained by the municipality, creating structural pressure to subordinate technical completeness to the municipality's partisan advantage
terminatedby: Conclusion of the adversarial proceeding or Engineer B's withdrawal
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
triggeringevent: Engineer B's retention by the municipality in an adversarial proceeding against Engineer A and the contractor, creating a context in which technical facts were selectively preferred or suppressed according to the municipality's interests
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.283959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Objectivity Obligation of Engineer B in Pile Adequacy Assessment
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Concluding report on test pile driving program
appliedto: Technical assessment of adequacy of 19 piles
balancingwith: Client loyalty
balancingwith: Scope-of-work limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's obligation to render an objective technical assessment of pile adequacy required inclusion of all material technical findings — pile driving records, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure — regardless of which party those findings favored, rather than selectively presenting only findings consistent with the municipality's litigation position
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in the forensic engineering context requires that the engineer's conclusions be based on the full evidentiary record, not a selectively filtered subset — the adversarial context heightens rather than diminishes the objectivity obligation because the stakes of biased technical testimony are higher in litigation
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
tensionresolution: Objectivity obligation was absolute in this context — no balancing factor justified the selective omission of material technical findings
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.290618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Truthfulness Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Upon Discovery of Data Inaccuracy
type: Truthfulness
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Active settlement negotiations between Attorney X and defendant's attorney
appliedto: Forensic report submitted to Attorney X
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, upon discovering that the data underlying the forensic report conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, faces an obligation of truthfulness that requires disclosure of this discovery to Attorney X rather than allowing the inaccurate report to stand during active settlement negotiations
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the forensic engineering context, truthfulness is not satisfied by submitting an accurate report at the time of submission — it continues as an obligation that requires correction when the engineer subsequently discovers that the factual basis of the report was inaccurate, regardless of the litigation consequences
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Truthfulness
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
tensionresolution: Truthfulness obligation requires immediate disclosure to Attorney X; the attorney then controls litigation strategy, but the engineer cannot allow the inaccurate report to remain uncorrected in the engineer's own professional capacity
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.284289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation in Forensic Report Correction
type: ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction to Attorney X
prevails over: Engineer A Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Exemption from Forensic Report Correction
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations and subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate. The adversarial context and settlement posture did not diminish Engineer A's obligation to correct the report and advise Attorney X immediately.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Adversarial Context Non-Exemption Invoked in Engineer A Forensic Report Correction
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain objectivity and render technically complete and accurate opinions — including correcting the forensic report upon discovering data inaccuracy — regardless of the adversarial context and active settlement negotiations, recognizing that the engineer's role is that of an objective technical expert rather than an advocate for Attorney X's litigation position.
sourcetext: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
temporalscope: Upon discovery of data inaccuracy; throughout the period of active settlement negotiations
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation. These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.293275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Adversarial Expert Engagement
casecontext: Engineer A was retained as a forensic expert by Attorney X. The discovery of data inaccuracy after report submission tests whether Engineer A will maintain objectivity or subordinate professional judgment to the attorney's litigation interests.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context Invoked by Engineer A
derived from principle: Honesty and Integrity Obligation of Forensic Engineering Experts
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a retained forensic expert in litigation, must render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on accurate data — and upon discovering that the data underlying the submitted report was inaccurate, must correct the report to reflect conclusions based on accurate data, functioning as an assistant to the fact-finding process rather than as an advocate for Attorney X's settlement position.
sourcetext: Part of Engineer A's duties is to perform forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation.
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic engagement, and specifically upon discovery of the data inaccuracy
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
textreferences: Part of Engineer A's duties is to perform forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.285885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context
type: ForensicReportIntegrityinActiveLitigationContext
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic report on mechanical product failure submitted to Attorney X
appliedto: Settlement negotiations between Attorney X and defendant's attorney
balancingwith: Attorney X's litigation strategy
balancingwith: Client loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's forensic report remained operative during active settlement negotiations, and the discovery of inaccurate underlying data triggered an obligation to disclose to Attorney X and advocate for correction — even though doing so might disadvantage Attorney X's negotiating position — because the engineer's duty to truthful professional reporting is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ongoing accuracy obligation attached to the report throughout the period it remained operative in settlement negotiations — submission did not discharge the obligation, which continued until the report was corrected or the proceeding concluded
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context
sourcetext: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
tensionresolution: Forensic report integrity obligation superseded client loyalty and adversarial context — the engineer could not allow an inaccurate report to influence settlement negotiations
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.290146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Honesty in Professional Representations Forensic Report Correction
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction to Attorney X
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary in Forensic Report Error Correction
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report with conclusions based on data that was subsequently discovered to be inaccurate. The report as submitted is materially incomplete and potentially misleading because it does not reflect conclusions based on accurate data.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked by Engineer A in Forensic Report Correction
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must be objective and truthful in the forensic report submitted to Attorney X, and upon discovering that the report's conclusions were based on inaccurate data, must correct the report to include accurate data and the conclusions that flow from it — recognizing that the original report, as submitted, contains a material inaccuracy that renders it incomplete and potentially misleading.
sourcetext: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the data inaccuracy
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.286043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Objectivity Obligation Violated
type: AdversarialEngagementObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipality's litigation position regarding pile adequacy
appliedto: Test pile driving report conclusions about 19 piles
balancingwith: Faithful agent obligation to municipality client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, retained by the municipality in adversarial litigation, selectively omitted material technical findings — including pile driving records showing essential refusal, wave equation calculations, and equipment failure — that would have favored Engineer A's position, violating the obligation to maintain the same standard of objectivity and completeness as in non-adversarial contexts
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The objectivity obligation required Engineer B to include all material technical findings regardless of which party they favored — the municipality's litigation interests did not justify selective omission of findings that would have supported Engineer A
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
tensionresolution: Objectivity obligation superseded faithful agent obligation — Engineer B could not serve as a faithful agent by producing a selectively incomplete report that misrepresented the technical reality
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.289351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion Pile Driving Records Violation
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
defeasible under: Engineer B Available Witness Non-Consultation
prevails over: Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
casecontext: Engineer B formed and published adverse opinions about the adequacy of 19 piles without consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives (who were available), without reviewing pile driving records, and without inquiring from contractors, workers, or others on the job. Engineer B later admitted the records were not reviewed because it was 'not in our scope of work' and then changed the explanation to disbelief of the records.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Violated
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to consult all reasonably available evidence — including pile driving records, Engineer A's on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — before publishing adverse conclusions about the adequacy of the 19 piles, and violated this obligation by failing to consult any of these available sources.
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
temporalscope: During preparation of the forensic report; before publishing adverse conclusions about pile adequacy
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.291469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Violated
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationObligationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinion
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Adverse opinion that 19 piles did not meet safety factor requirements
appliedto: Conclusions about why piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth
balancingwith: Client timeline constraints
balancingwith: Contractual scope limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B rendered adverse opinions about the adequacy of 19 piles without consulting Engineer A's on-site representatives (who were available), without reviewing pile driving records, and without inquiring from contractors or workers — despite all of these evidence sources being accessible and directly relevant to the adverse conclusions
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to consult available evidence before rendering adverse opinions required Engineer B to contact Engineer A's representatives, review primary pile driving records, and inquire from workers — the scope-of-work limitation did not excuse this failure when the evidence was readily accessible
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Before Adverse Technical Opinion
sourcetext: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
tensionresolution: The available evidence consultation obligation was not discharged by scope limitations — Engineer B's post-hoc admission that records were not reviewed 'because it was not in our scope of work' was found to be an inadequate justification
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
textreferences: No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth.
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.289508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Vibratory Hammer Equipment Failure Violation
type: ComparativeTestingMethodologicalFidelityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission
defeasible under: Engineer B Compromised Test Condition Replication
prevails over: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission
casecontext: Engineer B supervised test pile driving using a vibratory hammer not used in original driving, allowed pre-record hammer drops that broke pile bond and undervalued skin friction, and failed to report that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test. The test piles were also not driven to the same depth of penetration required for the plug to form in the original piles.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Engineer B Methodological Consistency and Equipment Failure Disclosure Obligation Violated
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to use methods, equipment, and procedures that faithfully replicated the original pile driving conditions — including the same hammer type and penetration depth requirements — and to disclose in the report all material deviations from original conditions, including use of a vibratory hammer not used in original driving, pre-record hammer drops that broke pile bond, and failure of dynamic test equipment.
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving
temporalscope: During supervision of test pile driving and preparation of the resulting forensic report
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving
textreferences: In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests
textreferences: after the 30-day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced
textreferences: the geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.292088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Methodological Consistency and Equipment Failure Disclosure Obligation Violated
type: MethodologicalConsistencyObligationinComparativeTesting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Concluding report on adequacy of 19 piles
appliedto: Test pile driving program to evaluate whether piles gained sufficient strength
balancingwith: Client interest in clean test results supporting litigation position
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B supervised test pile driving using a vibratory hammer not used in original driving, allowed pre-record hammer drops that broke pile bond and undervalued skin friction, and failed to report that dynamic test equipment had failed — none of these material methodological departures were disclosed in the concluding report
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to ensure methodological consistency and disclose departures required Engineer B to report the equipment failure, the vibratory hammer substitution, and the pre-record hammer drops — all of which materially affected the validity of the skin friction measurements and the conclusions drawn from them
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Methodological Consistency Obligation in Comparative Testing
sourcetext: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
tensionresolution: The methodological consistency obligation required disclosure of all material departures regardless of their impact on the client's litigation position
textreferences: Also, after the 30-day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced. In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
textreferences: Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.289842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Context Report Completeness Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
type: AdversarialContextReportCompletenessandNon-SelectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission
defeasible under: Engineer B Selective Data Omission in Pile Report
prevails over: Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and prepare a forensic report in adversarial litigation. Engineer B's report stated that 19 of 90 piles did not meet safety factor requirements but omitted pile driving records showing essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements. The Board found this constituted an egregious denial of professional duties.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Objectivity Obligation of Engineer B in Pile Adequacy Assessment
derived from principle: Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character in Pile Adequacy Mediation
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Adversarial Context Report Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to include all material technical findings in the forensic report — including pile driving records showing that the 19 piles had been driven to essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over design requirements — and was prohibited from selectively omitting those findings to defend the retaining municipality client.
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the forensic report in connection with mediation proceedings
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.291335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Non-Advocate Obligation Violated
type: EngineerNon-AdvocateStatusinAdversarialProceedings
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Determination of adequacy of 19 piles
appliedto: Test pile driving report for municipality litigation
balancingwith: Client loyalty to municipality
balancingwith: Scope-of-work contractual limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality through selective use of data — omitting pile driving records showing piles were driven to essential refusal, omitting wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements, and failing to report equipment failure — thereby abandoning the non-advocate role required of forensic engineering experts
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The adversarial legal context did not permit Engineer B to selectively present data favorable to the municipality while omitting material findings that would have supported Engineer A's position — the non-advocate obligation applied with full force in the mediation context
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
tensionresolution: The Board found Engineer B's conduct to be an egregious violation — the adversarial context created no exemption from the obligation to present complete and objective technical findings
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal, said the Board.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.289164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-disclosure of dynamic test equipment failure
appliedto: Omission of pile driving records from forensic report
balancingwith: Contractual scope of work with municipality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B invoked scope-of-work limitations as a justification for not reviewing pile driving records and not reporting equipment failure, while simultaneously rendering adverse conclusions about pile adequacy that the omitted evidence would have materially refuted — the scope limitation did not constitute a complete ethical defense for the material omissions
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The scope limitation defined the boundaries of required investigation but did not authorize Engineer B to omit from the report findings already within the engineer's knowledge or to avoid consulting readily available material evidence before rendering adverse conclusions
invokedby: Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
tensionresolution: The Board's characterization of Engineer B's conduct as an 'egregious denial of duties' indicates that the scope limitation was not a valid defense — the materiality of the omitted evidence overrode the scope limitation as an ethical justification
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.289668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary in Forensic Report Error Correction
type: ForensicExpertFaithfulAgentBoundaryinErrorCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer A Competing Duties — Truthfulness vs. Attorney Reliance
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Submission Report Error Discovery
casecontext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X as a forensic expert. The faithful agent duty to Attorney X might appear to counsel silence about the discovered inaccuracy during settlement negotiations, but the ethical boundary of the faithful agent duty requires disclosure.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Toward Attorney X
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must recognize that the faithful agent obligation owed to Attorney X does not extend to withholding the discovered data inaccuracy from Attorney X, and that disclosing the inaccuracy and corrected conclusions — even though adverse to Attorney X's current settlement position — constitutes the highest form of faithful agent service by preventing Attorney X from relying on and acting upon inaccurate professional conclusions.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the data inaccuracy and before settlement negotiations conclude
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.285742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Submission Error Correction Obligation to Attorney X
type: Post-SubmissionErrorCorrectionandDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Active settlement negotiations with defendant's attorney
appliedto: Forensic report submitted to Attorney X
balancingwith: Client loyalty to Attorney X
balancingwith: Potential disadvantage to Attorney X's negotiating position
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After submitting a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, Engineer A discovered that the data underlying the report conclusions was inaccurate — triggering an affirmative obligation to immediately advise Attorney X so that the attorney could make informed decisions about ongoing negotiations with the defendant's attorney
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:39:17.038993+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The post-submission error correction obligation was heightened by the active litigation context — since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations that may or may not have resulted in settlement, the corrected information was critically important for the attorney to possess before those negotiations concluded
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Post-Submission Error Correction and Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
tensionresolution: The obligation to correct and disclose superseded any concern about disadvantaging the client's negotiating position — the engineer's duty of truthfulness is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.289993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Obligation
type: Post-SubmissionForensicReportDataInaccuracyCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary in Forensic Report Error Correction
defeasible under: Engineer A Forensic Report Submitted — Data Error Discovered
defeasible under: Forensic Report Active in Settlement Negotiations
prevails over: Engineer A Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction to Attorney X
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a forensic report regarding a mechanical product failure to Attorney X, who is engaged in settlement negotiations. Engineer A subsequently discovered that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would change the conclusions.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Engineer A Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context
derived from principle: Truthfulness Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Upon Discovery of Data Inaccuracy
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations and subsequently discovering that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, is obligated to promptly disclose the discovered data inaccuracy and the corrected conclusions to Attorney X, notwithstanding the active settlement negotiations and any adverse impact on Attorney X's litigation position.
sourcetext: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
temporalscope: Immediately upon Engineer A's discovery that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield different conclusions, and before settlement negotiations conclude or any further reliance on the original report occurs
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to Attorney X.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.285595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation Violated in Pile Adequacy Assessment
type: ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateObjectivityinAdversarialProceedingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
defeasible under: Engineer B Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination
defeasible under: Engineer B Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
prevails over: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the municipality in adversarial litigation and assumed the role of advocate rather than objective expert, selectively using data to defend the municipality and omitting material technical findings that were favorable to the opposing party. The Board characterized this as an egregious denial of professional duties.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Engineer B Adversarial Non-Advocate Obligation Violated
derived from principle: Engineer B Adversarial Objectivity Obligation Violated
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of all available facts — including pile driving records and wave equation calculations — functioning as an assistant to the mediating body rather than as an advocate for the retaining municipality, and to resist the structural expectation that the engineer would adopt the partisan advocacy role.
sourcetext: the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
temporalscope: Throughout the forensic engagement including test pile supervision and report preparation
textreferences: While the facts in BER Case 95-5 are somewhat different than the present case, the Board of Ethical Review believes that BER Case 95-5 is instructive regarding the expectations when a professional engineer serves as an engineering expert
textreferences: the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.292833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Toward Attorney X
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic engineering engagement with Attorney X
appliedto: Settlement negotiations
balancingwith: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Intellectual Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's role as a retained forensic expert for Attorney X creates a faithful agent obligation to serve Attorney X's interests — but this obligation is bounded by the ethical requirement to disclose discovered data inaccuracies, meaning that faithful agency in this context requires informing Attorney X of the error rather than concealing it to preserve the litigation position
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Faithful agency to the retaining attorney is best served by immediate disclosure of discovered errors — the attorney's true interest is in accurate professional advice, not in a report the engineer knows to be inaccurate; concealment would ultimately disserve the attorney's interests
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
tensionresolution: Faithful agency and truthfulness are aligned in this context — both require disclosure to Attorney X; the faithful agent obligation does not extend to concealing known errors that could expose the attorney and client to adverse consequences if the inaccuracy is later discovered
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
textreferences: Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.285095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Exemption from Forensic Report Correction
type: AdversarialSettlementContextNon-ExemptionfromForensicReportCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Adversarial Context Report Completeness Non-Selectivity
defeasible under: Engineer A Adversarial Expert Engagement
defeasible under: Engineer A Forensic Report Active Litigation Reliance
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Submission Report Error Discovery
casecontext: Engineer A's forensic report was submitted during active settlement negotiations. The adversarial and settlement context creates implicit pressure not to correct conclusions adverse to the attorney's position, but this pressure does not override the professional correction obligation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Adversarial Context Non-Exemption Invoked in Engineer A Forensic Report Correction
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:35:51.450338+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Exemption from Forensic Report Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must recognize that the active status of Attorney X's settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney does not exempt Engineer A from the obligation to correct the forensic report upon discovering that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield materially different conclusions, and must refrain from treating the settlement context as a justification for withholding the correction.
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the data inaccuracy, regardless of the stage of settlement negotiations
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case.
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different.
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.291066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Adversarial Context Non-Exemption Invoked in Engineer A Forensic Report Correction
type: AdversarialContextNon-ExemptionfromProfessionalStandards
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Forensic engineering investigation
appliedto: Written report submitted to Attorney X in litigation context
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The fact that Engineer A's forensic report was prepared in connection with pending litigation and that Attorney X is engaged in active settlement negotiations does not exempt Engineer A from the professional obligation to disclose discovered data inaccuracies — the adversarial nature of the proceeding does not relax the engineer's duty to truthful and accurate professional reporting
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:34:52.922720+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The adversarial litigation context creates pressure to preserve the original report's conclusions for strategic reasons, but this pressure does not constitute an ethical justification for allowing a known inaccuracy to remain uncorrected in an operative professional document
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
principleclass: Adversarial Context Non-Exemption from Professional Standards
sourcetext: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
tensionresolution: Adversarial context non-exemption principle establishes that the engineer's duty of accuracy and correction applies with equal force in litigation as in non-adversarial contexts; the attorney controls litigation strategy but the engineer controls professional report integrity
textreferences: Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
textreferences: Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
textreferences: Part of Engineer A's duties is to perform forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.284737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction to Attorney X
type: ForensicExpertFaithfulAgentBoundaryinErrorCorrectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Adversarial Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation in Forensic Report Correction
competes with: Engineer A Honesty in Professional Representations Forensic Report Correction
defeasible under: Engineer A Competing Duties — Truthfulness vs. Attorney Reliance
defeasible under: Engineer A Forensic Report Submitted — Data Error Discovered
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Attorney X as a forensic expert. Upon discovering data inaccuracy post-submission, Engineer A faced the question of whether faithful agent duty to Attorney X required withholding the correction during active settlement negotiations. The Board established that faithful agent duty does not extend to suppressing error correction.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Toward Attorney X
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Attorney X did not extend to suppressing or withholding correction of the discovered data inaccuracy in the submitted forensic report; correcting the report constituted the highest form of faithful agent service by preventing Attorney X from relying on inaccurate conclusions in settlement negotiations.
sourcetext: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
temporalscope: Upon discovery of data inaccuracy; throughout the period of active settlement negotiations
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
textreferences: Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.291201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforMaterialEvidenceOmissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Adversarial Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation Violated in Pile Adequacy Assessment
competes with: Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion Pile Driving Records Violation
defeasible under: Engineer B Selective Data Omission in Pile Report
defeasible under: Engineer B Selective Information Omission in Pile Report
casecontext: Engineer B initially justified the omission of pile driving records from the forensic report by stating it was 'not in our scope of work.' The pile driving records were readily available and directly relevant to Engineer B's conclusions about whether 19 piles met safety factor requirements. The scope-of-work limitation did not relieve Engineer B of the obligation to include this material evidence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from invoking scope-of-work limitations as justification for omitting pile driving records from the forensic report, as those records were readily available and directly relevant to the conclusions being drawn about the adequacy of the 19 piles.
sourcetext: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
temporalscope: During preparation of the forensic report and when queried about the omission
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.292375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission
type: ClientDisserviceThroughSelectiveReportingNon-CommissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Adversarial Context Report Completeness Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
competes with: Engineer B Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Vibratory Hammer Equipment Failure Violation
defeasible under: Engineer B Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization
casecontext: Engineer B's omission of pile driving records showing essential refusal and wave equation calculations showing strength multiples over requirements — while purporting to defend the municipality — actually disserved the municipality by providing an incomplete technical basis that could be challenged and undermined the municipality's litigation position.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:41:51.712459+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Non-Commission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from producing a forensic report that selectively omitted pile driving records and wave equation calculations in a manner that disserved the municipality client's actual interests — recognizing that selective omission of material facts deprived the municipality of a rational basis for evaluating the opposing party's position and may have misdirected the municipality's legal conclusions.
sourcetext: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the forensic report in connection with mediation proceedings
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
textreferences: the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.292651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer B Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor
type: AdversarialLitigationTestingSupervisorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer B Adversarial Non-Advocate Obligation Violated
adheres to principle: Engineer B Adversarial Objectivity Obligation Violated
adheres to principle: Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Violated
adheres to principle: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting
adheres to principle: Engineer B Methodological Consistency and Equipment Failure Disclosure Obligation Violated
adheres to principle: Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission
adheres to principle: Objectivity Obligation of Engineer B in Pile Adequacy Assessment
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount in Forensic Engineering Expert Role
adheres to principle: Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character in Pile Adequacy Mediation
has obligation: Engineer B Adversarial Context Report Completeness Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
has obligation: Engineer B Adversarial Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation Violated in Pile Adequacy Assessment
has obligation: Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion Pile Driving Records Violation
has obligation: Engineer B Client Disservice Through Selective Pile Driving Records Omission
has obligation: Engineer B Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Vibratory Hammer Equipment Failure Violation
has obligation: Engineer B Contradictory Professional Explanation Scope vs Disbelief Violation
has obligation: Engineer B Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Selective Data Defense Violation
has obligation: Engineer B Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Pile Driving Records Omission Violation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Geotechnical / pile foundation testing', 'retaining_party': 'Municipality', 'ethical_finding': 'Egregious denial of professional duties through selective use of data'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by the municipality to supervise the driving of several test piles to determine whether piles would gain sufficient strength to meet design calculation requirements; prepared a concluding report finding 19 of 90 piles deficient; omitted from the report that those 19 piles had been driven to essential refusal and that wave equation calculations would show strength multiples over requirements; failed to disclose dynamic test equipment failure; never consulted Engineer A's representatives despite their availability; provided contradictory post-hoc explanations for omissions; found by the Board to have engaged in selective use of data to defend the client municipality.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial_peer', 'target': 'Independent Geotechnical Consultant'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Municipality Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor Engineer
sourcetext: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
textreferences: At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
textreferences: Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles...had been driven to essential refusal
textreferences: Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor
textreferences: This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer
textreferences: the Board concluded that Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data
textreferences: the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.281896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Report Error Discoverer
type: ForensicReportErrorDiscoveringEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Adversarial Context Non-Exemption Invoked in Engineer A Forensic Report Correction
adheres to principle: Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition Invoked in Engineer A Forensic Error Context
adheres to principle: Engineer A Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context
adheres to principle: Engineer A Post-Submission Error Correction Obligation to Attorney X
adheres to principle: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Toward Attorney X
adheres to principle: Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked by Engineer A in Forensic Report Correction
adheres to principle: Intellectual Honesty Obligation Invoked by Engineer A in Forensic Report Correction
adheres to principle: Truthfulness Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Upon Discovery of Data Inaccuracy
has obligation: Engineer A Adversarial Context Report Completeness Non-Selectivity
has obligation: Engineer A Adversarial Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation in Forensic Report Correction
has obligation: Engineer A Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Exemption from Forensic Report Correction
has obligation: Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary in Forensic Report Error Correction
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction to Attorney X
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding
has obligation: Engineer A Honesty in Professional Representations Forensic Report Correction
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Submission Forensic Report Correction Obligation to Attorney X Settlement Context
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Obligation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'discovery_timing': 'During active settlement negotiations', 'obligation': 'Immediate affirmative notification to retaining attorney'}
caseinvolvement: Having submitted a forensic report to Attorney X during active settlement negotiations, Engineer A subsequently discovered that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate and that use of more accurate data would have led to different conclusions, triggering an affirmative obligation to immediately notify Attorney X of the error so that inaccurate conclusions would not be used to the detriment of any party or the integrity of the legal process.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 107
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 107
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:32:59.287994+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Attorney X Litigation Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'self', 'target': 'Engineer A Dock Foundation Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Report Error Discovering Engineer
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
textreferences: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X.
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
textreferences: this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
wasattributedto: Case 107 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:51:16.282527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 107 Extraction