ProEthica Case 111 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.285880
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER_Case_86-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 86-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 86-2, the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm affixed his seal to some of the plans prepared by licensed engineers working under his general direction
textreferences: In BER Case 86-2, the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm affixed his seal to some of the plans prepared by licensed engineers working under his general direction
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about the present case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that it is unethical for an engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail, grounding the principle of responsible charge and the integrity of the sealing process
version: 1986
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.301238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

BER Case 86-2 before BER Case 09-6
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More recently, in BER Case 09-6...unlike the earlier cases...as was the circumstance in Case 86-2
from entity text: BER Case 86-2
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 09-6
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER_Case_09-6
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

BER Case Precedent on Engineer Report Alteration by Non-Engineer Supervisor
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Unauthorized Alteration of Engineering Reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report
usedby: Ethical analysis of Engineer A's obligations following discovery of report alteration
usedincontext: Provides analogical reasoning patterns for the ethical obligations of engineers when non-engineer supervisors alter or attempt to alter sealed engineering reports, and for the remedial steps engineers must take upon discovering such alterations.
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.286186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Case 111 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 7
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

CausalLink_Conduct Property Inspections
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

CausalLink_Prepare and Document Findings
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

CausalLink_Refuse Report Alterations
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

CausalLink_Require Immediate Report Corre
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

CausalLink_Seek Understanding of Alterati
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

CausalLink_Sign and Seal Reports
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Chief Engineer BER 86-2 Responsible Charge Review Deficiency
type: ResponsibleChargeDetailedReviewBeforeSealingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Capability
capabilitystatement: The Chief Engineer lacked or failed to exercise the capability to conduct detailed review of plans before sealing, relying instead on general direction and confidence in subordinates — a practice the Board found unethical.
casecontext: BER Case 86-2: Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm affixed seal to plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers under general direction without detailed review
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Sealing plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers without detailed review, justified by organizational size and volume of projects
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Chief Engineer BER Case 86-2
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
textreferences: Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.307576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A has an obligation to seek an understanding of his company’s actions and, if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusion contained in Engineer A’s report, to seek an immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities, including the state engineering licensure board and other enforcement officials as appropriate.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must seek understanding and correction, the timing of Engineer A's obligation to act is not discretionary. Engineer A's professional duties were triggered at three distinct and sequential points, each carrying independent ethical weight: first, upon Supervisor B's initial request to alter the reports, Engineer A correctly refused — satisfying his immediate duty of non-subordination. Second, upon learning (or having reasonable grounds to suspect) that the reports were submitted to the insurance company without his authorization, Engineer A was obligated to immediately investigate and notify relevant authorities — not to wait passively. Third, when property owners confirmed the falsification through denied claims, Engineer A's obligation to act had already been overdue. Delay between the second and third trigger points — even if Engineer A lacked certainty — itself constitutes an ethical shortcoming, because the NSPE Code's public welfare paramount principle does not permit an engineer to await confirmation of harm before acting to prevent it. The Board's conclusion implicitly assumes Engineer A acted promptly upon learning of the alteration, but the facts suggest a gap during which identifiable third parties suffered concrete financial harm that earlier action might have mitigated.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion focuses on Engineer A's obligation to contact the licensing board and enforcement authorities, but does not address whether Engineer A bears a direct and independent obligation to notify the residential property owners whose claims were denied. Because those property owners are identifiable, named individuals suffering ongoing and concrete financial harm — harm directly traceable to reports bearing Engineer A's seal — they constitute a class of third parties whose protection falls squarely within the public welfare paramount canon. Engineer A's obligation to avoid conduct that deceives the public, combined with his stamped document accountability, creates an affirmative duty to inform those owners that the reports submitted in his name do not reflect his actual findings. Notification to the licensing board and enforcement authorities, while necessary, is not sufficient to discharge this duty, because regulatory proceedings may take months or years while property owners remain without recourse. Direct notification to the property owners — advising them that the reports were altered without Engineer A's knowledge or consent and do not represent his professional conclusions — is both ethically required and practically necessary to enable those owners to challenge the insurance denials through legal or regulatory channels. Failure to provide such direct notification would leave Engineer A complicit, through inaction, in the ongoing financial harm caused by the falsified reports bearing his seal.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.1.d.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must seek correction and contact appropriate authorities implicitly requires Engineer A to disassociate from XYZ Engineering, but the Board does not articulate the tension between disassociation and the continued access to firm records that effective correction may require. Engineer A faces a structural dilemma: fulfilling his corrective obligations — including investigating the precise nature and scope of alterations, identifying which reports were changed, and providing accurate information to authorities — may require access to XYZ Engineering's internal files, communications, and submitted documents. Immediate resignation, while ethically compelled by the non-association obligation, could sever Engineer A's practical ability to gather the evidence necessary to support a complete and accurate report to the licensing board. The resolution of this tension is that Engineer A's disassociation obligation does not require instantaneous severance before corrective steps are taken, but it does require that disassociation occur without undue delay and that Engineer A not allow continued employment to become a mechanism for suppressing or delaying his reporting obligations. Engineer A should document all known alterations, preserve copies of his original sealed reports, and initiate contact with the licensing board and enforcement authorities before or concurrent with his resignation — not as a condition of it. Continued employment at XYZ Engineering beyond the minimum time necessary to preserve evidence and initiate reporting would itself constitute an ethical violation under the non-association with fraudulent enterprise obligation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 1 e
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.1.e.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: II.1.b.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion does not explicitly address the question of whether Supervisor B's unilateral alteration of Engineer A's signed and sealed reports constitutes the unlawful practice of engineering — a determination with significant implications for Engineer A's independent reporting obligations. Supervisor B, as a non-engineer principal, lacks the licensure required to make technical engineering judgments about the causation of structural damage. By altering Engineer A's sealed reports to change the engineering conclusion from hurricane-related damage to pre-existing structural conditions, Supervisor B exercised a technical engineering judgment that only a licensed professional engineer is authorized to make. This conduct falls squarely within the definition of unlicensed engineering practice under most state licensure statutes. Engineer A's obligation under the NSPE Code not to aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering, combined with his obligation to report known violations to appropriate authorities, creates a non-delegable duty to report Supervisor B's conduct to the state engineering licensure board — independent of any internal firm resolution, independent of whether XYZ Engineering takes corrective action, and independent of whether the insurance company reverses its claim denials. This reporting obligation is not satisfied by Engineer A's initial refusal to make the alterations himself; refusal prevents Engineer A's own participation in unlicensed practice but does not discharge the separate obligation to report Supervisor B's completed act of unlicensed practice to the licensing board.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: A nuance the Board did not address is the question of Engineer A's residual professional liability for the harm caused by the altered reports, even though he neither made the alterations nor consented to them. Under the stamped document ongoing professional accountability principle, Engineer A's seal on the reports creates a continuing professional responsibility for their integrity that is not extinguished by the covert nature of Supervisor B's alterations. While Engineer A cannot be held ethically culpable for alterations made without his knowledge, his accountability for the documents bearing his seal means that the professional and potentially legal consequences of those alterations attach to his license until and unless he takes affirmative steps to publicly disavow the altered versions and establish the record of his original findings. This accountability asymmetry — where Engineer A bears responsibility for documents he did not alter — is precisely why the corrective and reporting obligations identified by the Board are non-optional: they are the mechanism by which Engineer A can discharge the ongoing accountability that his seal creates. An engineer who seals a document and then takes no corrective action upon discovering that document has been falsified in his name has, through inaction, effectively ratified the falsification for purposes of professional accountability, even if he initially refused to make the changes himself.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101, Engineer A's professional obligations were triggered in stages, and delay at each stage compounds the ethical violation. The first obligation arose when Supervisor B initially requested alterations: Engineer A was obligated not merely to refuse but to document that refusal and place XYZ Engineering on formal notice that the reports could not be altered without a technical basis. The second, more urgent obligation arose when Engineer A learned — through the property owners' contact — that the reports had been submitted in altered form bearing his seal. At that point, continued inaction constituted an independent ethical violation distinct from the original refusal. The NSPE Code's requirement to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (Canon I.1) and to notify appropriate authorities when engineering judgment is overruled in ways that endanger property (II.1.a) do not permit passive waiting. Delay between discovering the alteration and reporting it to the licensing board and enforcement authorities is itself an ethical failure, because each additional day the falsified reports remain operative causes ongoing, concrete financial harm to identifiable property owners. The ethical clock does not reset to zero upon refusal; it begins running again — more urgently — upon discovery of the covert alteration.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102, Engineer A bears significant professional liability exposure — though not criminal culpability for the alteration itself — for the harm suffered by the residential property owners. Because the falsified reports bear his seal, they carry his professional authority in the eyes of the insurance company, the property owners, and any reviewing authority. The seal is not merely a formality; it is a legal and professional representation that the document reflects the engineer's findings and judgment. When Engineer A discovered that altered reports bearing his seal had been submitted and were causing claim denials, his failure to immediately act to correct the record transformed his passive non-involvement into a form of constructive endorsement. Under the Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability principle, Engineer A retains responsibility for the integrity of sealed documents even after they leave his hands. This does not mean he is liable for Supervisor B's criminal conduct, but it does mean that his professional license is implicated by the continued circulation of falsified documents bearing his seal, and that affected property owners have a legitimate basis to assert that Engineer A's professional authority was misused to their detriment. The longer Engineer A delays corrective action, the more his inaction resembles acquiescence.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103, Engineer A bears an obligation to directly notify the residential property owners whose claims were denied based on the falsified reports, and this obligation is not satisfied by notifying only the licensing board and enforcement authorities. The property owners are identifiable, have already suffered concrete financial harm, and contacted Engineer A directly — meaning Engineer A has both the knowledge and the means to reach them. The Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection principle, combined with the general duty to hold paramount the public welfare (Canon I.1) and to avoid conduct that deceives the public (III.3), supports direct notification. Routing all corrective action exclusively through regulatory channels — which may take months or years to resolve — while property owners remain unaware that the reports bearing Engineer A's seal were falsified would allow ongoing financial harm to persist unnecessarily. Engineer A should inform the property owners that the reports as submitted do not reflect his findings, that he did not authorize the alterations, and that he is taking corrective action. This notification does not require disclosure of confidential client engagement details beyond what is necessary to correct the falsification; the duty to prevent ongoing harm to identifiable third parties overrides any residual confidentiality interest the insurance company might assert in the fraudulently altered documents.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 e
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.1.d.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: I.1.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104, XYZ Engineering's conduct — directing a non-engineer principal to alter sealed engineering reports for the financial benefit of an insurance company client — constitutes precisely the kind of fraudulent enterprise from which Engineer A is obligated to disassociate under NSPE Code provision II.1.d, which prohibits engineers from associating in business ventures with persons or firms engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise. The disassociation obligation is not merely aspirational; it is a binding constraint. However, disassociation alone is insufficient and must be sequenced carefully. Before or alongside departure, Engineer A must: (1) document and preserve all evidence of the original reports and the alterations; (2) formally notify XYZ Engineering in writing that the altered reports must be corrected or withdrawn; (3) report Supervisor B's unlicensed practice and the firm's fraudulent conduct to the state engineering licensure board; (4) notify appropriate enforcement authorities; and (5) directly inform the affected property owners. Departing without taking these steps would constitute abandonment of ongoing corrective obligations. The Professional Association Disengagement Obligation does not extinguish Engineer A's accountability for sealed documents that remain in circulation; it runs concurrently with, not as a substitute for, his reporting and correction duties.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201, the apparent tension between the Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability principle and the Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority principle is real but resolvable. Engineer A can be simultaneously accountable for the integrity of his sealed documents and absolved of moral responsibility for the specific act of alteration — but only if he takes active corrective steps upon discovering the alteration. The accountability principle does not mean Engineer A is guilty of falsification; it means he is responsible for ensuring that documents bearing his seal accurately represent his professional judgment, and that when they do not, he acts to correct the record. The non-subordination principle establishes that Supervisor B had no authority to alter the reports — but that principle, standing alone, does not discharge Engineer A's ongoing accountability. The two principles operate in sequence: non-subordination defines the wrongdoer (Supervisor B), while ongoing accountability defines Engineer A's corrective duty. Engineer A cannot invoke non-subordination as a complete shield while remaining passive in the face of ongoing harm caused by falsified documents bearing his seal.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202, the conflict between Engineer A's Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status and the Client Report Suppression Prohibition is resolved by recognizing that the insurance company's status as client does not insulate it from Engineer A's reporting obligations when that client is the direct beneficiary of fraud. The forensic expert non-advocate principle requires Engineer A to remain objective and free from client influence — a principle he honored by refusing Supervisor B's alteration request. However, when the client's interests are served by falsified reports, Engineer A's duty to the public and to the integrity of his sealed documents supersedes any residual duty of loyalty to the client engagement. The client relationship does not create a confidentiality privilege that shields fraud. Engineer A's obligation to report the falsification to the licensing board and enforcement authorities — and to notify the property owners — is not a breach of client duty; it is the fulfillment of the higher professional duty that the forensic expert role itself demands. The insurance company forfeited any claim to Engineer A's professional loyalty the moment it accepted and acted upon reports it knew or should have known were altered.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.1.d.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203, the tension between the Professional Association Disengagement Obligation and the Professional Accountability principle requiring continued engagement to investigate and correct the falsification is genuine but manageable through careful sequencing. Engineer A cannot use disengagement as a reason to abandon corrective duties, nor can he use the need to fulfill corrective duties as a reason to indefinitely delay disengagement from a fraudulent enterprise. The resolution is that Engineer A must pursue corrective actions — preserving evidence, notifying the licensing board, contacting enforcement authorities, and informing property owners — before or simultaneously with his departure from XYZ Engineering, not after. Access to firm records needed for correction should be secured before departure; if XYZ Engineering denies that access, that denial itself becomes part of the misconduct to be reported to authorities. Disengagement does not require Engineer A to sever all contact with the matter; it requires him to sever his employment relationship with a fraudulent enterprise while continuing to fulfill his independent professional obligations as the engineer of record on the affected sealed documents.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.124913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.3.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204, the conflict between the Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection principle and any residual client confidentiality obligation is resolved decisively in favor of third-party protection. Client confidentiality in professional engineering engagements does not extend to shielding fraud or protecting the financial interests of a client who has benefited from falsified reports. The NSPE Code's prohibition on conduct that deceives the public (III.3) and the paramount duty to public welfare (I.1) establish that when confidentiality and public protection conflict, public protection prevails. Engineer A's disclosure to property owners that the reports bearing his seal do not reflect his actual findings — and that he did not authorize the alterations — does not require him to reveal proprietary business information or legitimately confidential client data. It requires only that he correct a false professional representation made in his name. The insurance company's engagement details are not the subject of the disclosure; the falsification of Engineer A's professional findings is. No legitimate interpretation of professional confidentiality obligates an engineer to remain silent while identifiable third parties suffer ongoing financial harm from fraudulent use of his sealed documents.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 e
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A's categorical duty to protect the integrity of his signed and sealed reports was not fulfilled by refusal alone. Kantian deontology requires that the duty be performed completely — not merely that the agent avoid being the direct cause of the wrong. The categorical imperative, applied here, would require Engineer A to act in a way that could be universalized: if all engineers whose sealed reports were covertly falsified simply refused the initial request and then remained passive, the entire system of professional sealing as a guarantee of engineering integrity would collapse. The duty therefore extends unconditionally to active correction and reporting once alteration is discovered. Employment consequences, personal discomfort, or the inconvenience of confronting a fraudulent employer do not constitute morally sufficient reasons to abandon the duty under a deontological framework. The duty to report (II.1.f), to avoid aiding unlicensed practice (II.1.e), and to hold paramount public welfare (I.1) are deontological in character — they do not yield to consequentialist calculations about personal cost.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.3.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate harm to residential property owners whose hurricane damage claims were wrongly denied — loss of insurance compensation for structural damage, potential displacement, financial distress, and the cost of litigation to reverse the denials — vastly outweighs any benefit accruing to XYZ Engineering from retaining the insurance company as a client or to the insurance company from avoiding covered payouts. A rigorous consequentialist calculus would also account for systemic harms: erosion of public trust in engineering assessments, degradation of the professional sealing system as a reliable indicator of engineering judgment, and the chilling effect on other engineers who might fear similar employer retaliation. These systemic harms multiply the direct harm to individual property owners. The consequentialist conclusion is therefore that Engineer A is obligated to pursue every available corrective channel — licensing board notification, enforcement authority contact, direct property owner notification, and disengagement from XYZ Engineering — because the aggregate benefit of those actions (reversing wrongful denials, deterring future fraud, preserving professional integrity) substantially exceeds the personal costs to Engineer A of taking them.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrated the professional virtues of courage and integrity in refusing Supervisor B's initial alteration request — a morally praiseworthy act that required resisting direct employer pressure. However, virtue ethics evaluates character holistically and over time, not merely at a single moment of decision. A person of genuine professional integrity does not simply refuse wrongdoing and then withdraw; they pursue the correction of harm that flows from wrongdoing they have discovered. If Engineer A, upon learning from the property owners that falsified reports bearing his seal had caused their claims to be denied, failed to take active corrective steps — notifying the licensing board, contacting enforcement authorities, informing the property owners, and disengaging from XYZ Engineering — that failure would represent a collapse of the very virtues he initially displayed. Virtue ethics would characterize such a failure not as a momentary lapse but as a revelation that the initial refusal, while correct, was not grounded in a fully developed professional character. The virtuous engineer does not merely avoid being the instrument of fraud; he actively works to undo the fraud's effects when he has the knowledge and capacity to do so.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 e
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.1.e.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, Supervisor B's unilateral alteration of Engineer A's signed and sealed reports constitutes the unlawful practice of engineering — specifically, the exercise of engineering judgment over sealed technical documents by a person who is not a licensed professional engineer. This is not a borderline case: altering the technical conclusions of a sealed engineering report is an act of engineering, and performing it without a license violates state engineering licensure laws in virtually every jurisdiction. Engineer A's obligation to report this unlicensed practice to the state licensing board under NSPE Code provision II.1.e (prohibiting aiding or abetting unlawful practice) and II.1.f (requiring reporting of known violations) is non-negotiable and independent of any internal firm resolution. The deontological character of this duty is underscored by the fact that it does not yield to consequentialist considerations such as the possibility that internal resolution might be faster or less disruptive. The duty to report unlicensed practice exists to protect the public and the integrity of the licensure system — purposes that are not served by private resolution between Engineer A and XYZ Engineering.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401, had Engineer A immediately notified the residential property owners and the state engineering licensure board upon discovering the alteration — rather than waiting passively until property owners contacted him — it is highly probable that at least some of the insurance claim denials could have been reversed before causing lasting financial harm. The insurance company's denial decisions were based on the falsified reports; a prompt, formal notification from Engineer A that the reports bearing his seal did not reflect his findings and had been altered without his authorization would have provided the property owners with the professional documentation needed to challenge the denials. Early notification to the licensing board would also have created an official record of the falsification, lending institutional weight to any challenge. The counterfactual underscores that Engineer A's obligation to act was not merely prospective — to prevent future harm — but also retrospective: to mitigate ongoing harm already in motion. This reinforces the conclusion that delay in acting after discovering the alteration is itself an ethical violation with measurable real-world consequences.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: II.1.b.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402, internal escalation by Engineer A to XYZ Engineering's senior leadership or legal counsel — before Supervisor B submitted the falsified reports — represented the most efficient and least disruptive corrective pathway available at that stage, and its omission is a significant gap in Engineer A's response. Had Engineer A escalated formally in writing to firm leadership upon Supervisor B's initial alteration request, several outcomes become plausible: senior leadership might have overruled Supervisor B; legal counsel might have recognized the firm's exposure and blocked submission; or the firm's refusal to act on the escalation would have provided Engineer A with clear documentation of institutional complicity, strengthening his subsequent reports to the licensing board and enforcement authorities. The failure to exhaust internal escalation before the reports were submitted does not eliminate Engineer A's later obligations, but it does suggest that a more proactive response at the earliest stage — treating Supervisor B's request as a formal professional crisis requiring immediate institutional response, not merely a supervisory disagreement — would have been both ethically superior and practically more effective.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 1 e
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403, had XYZ Engineering employed a licensed professional engineer as Supervisor B's superior — or as Supervisor B's replacement in the supervisory role over Engineer A — the chain of authority over sealed reports would have been structured in conformity with professional engineering standards, which require that engineering judgments be reviewed and overruled, if at all, only by licensed engineers with the technical competence to do so. A licensed PE supervisor would have been bound by the same NSPE Code obligations as Engineer A, including the prohibition on approving documents not in conformity with applicable standards (II.1.b) and the duty to hold paramount public welfare (I.1). While the presence of a licensed supervisor would not have guaranteed ethical conduct, it would have created a professional accountability structure in which any attempt to alter sealed reports would itself constitute a licensable offense subject to board discipline — a deterrent absent when the alteration is performed by a non-engineer principal operating outside the licensure system. This counterfactual highlights a structural vulnerability in engineering firms where non-engineer principals exercise de facto authority over licensed engineers' sealed work products.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 e
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.d.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: I.1.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404, immediate resignation from XYZ Engineering upon discovering the alteration — without taking any additional corrective steps — would not have constituted a sufficient fulfillment of Engineer A's professional obligations. Disengagement from a fraudulent enterprise is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical compliance. The Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint requires Engineer A to sever his employment relationship with XYZ Engineering, but it does not discharge his independent obligations as the engineer of record on the falsified sealed documents. Those obligations — to notify the licensing board, to report to enforcement authorities, to inform the affected property owners, and to seek correction of the falsified reports — exist independently of his employment status and persist after resignation. Indeed, resignation without reporting would leave the falsified reports in circulation, the property owners without recourse, Supervisor B's unlicensed practice unreported, and XYZ Engineering free to repeat the conduct with other engineers. A resignation that is not accompanied by the full suite of corrective reporting obligations would represent an ethical failure of a different kind: the use of personal disengagement as a substitute for professional accountability.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 1 e
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
cited provision3: II.1.e.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability principle and the Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority principle was resolved not by choosing one over the other, but by recognizing that they operate in complementary sequence rather than in conflict. Engineer A's accountability for his sealed reports does not diminish simply because the alteration was covert and unauthorized — the seal is a public representation of professional responsibility that survives the act of sealing. At the same time, the Non-Subordination principle confirms that Supervisor B had no authority to alter those documents. The case teaches that these two principles together create a continuous chain of obligation: Engineer A retains accountability precisely because the seal is inviolable, and that inviolability is what makes Supervisor B's alteration both a professional violation and an unlicensed practice of engineering. Engineer A cannot be simultaneously absolved of accountability and held responsible — rather, he is accountable for the document's integrity in the world, which is exactly why he must act to correct it, even though he did not make the alteration. The resolution is that covert alteration by an unauthorized party does not transfer accountability away from the engineer of record; it instead triggers an affirmative corrective obligation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: II.1.b.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between the Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status principle and the Client Report Suppression Prohibition was resolved by recognizing that the insurance company's status as the client does not grant it any authority over the substantive conclusions of Engineer A's forensic reports. This case teaches a foundational principle prioritization rule: in forensic and assessment engineering, the client relationship is transactional and procedural, not epistemic. The client may direct the scope of the engagement, but it cannot direct the findings. When XYZ Engineering — acting as the conduit between the insurance company's financial interests and Engineer A's professional conclusions — altered the reports to serve those interests, it violated both principles simultaneously. The Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status principle was violated because the altered reports now advocated for the insurer's preferred outcome rather than reflecting objective technical findings. The Client Report Suppression Prohibition was violated because the true findings were effectively suppressed and replaced. This dual violation means Engineer A's obligation to the public and to professional objectivity categorically outweighs any residual duty of loyalty to the client or employer. The case establishes that when a client's financial interest is the direct cause of report falsification, client confidentiality and loyalty obligations collapse entirely as ethical shields.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.1.d.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between the Professional Association Disengagement Obligation and the Professional Accountability principle requiring ongoing corrective engagement was not fully resolved by the Board's explicit conclusions, and this represents the most significant unresolved principle tension in the case. Disengagement from XYZ Engineering is ethically required because continued association with a firm that has committed fraud using Engineer A's sealed documents constitutes aiding and abetting ongoing deception. However, disengagement without prior or concurrent corrective action — reporting to the licensing board, notifying enforcement authorities, and potentially notifying the affected property owners — would leave the harm in place and the fraud uncorrected. This case teaches that the Professional Association Disengagement Obligation is not self-executing as an ethical remedy; it must be accompanied by, and in some respects preceded by, the affirmative corrective obligations it does not itself discharge. The principle prioritization rule that emerges is that disengagement is a necessary but not sufficient ethical response to employer fraud. Engineer A must sequence his obligations carefully: investigate and document the alteration, report to appropriate authorities, and then disengage — or pursue these actions in parallel — rather than treating resignation as a substitute for reporting. Disengagement that precedes reporting may actually impede Engineer A's access to the records needed to substantiate his report to the licensing board, making the sequencing of these obligations a matter of practical ethical significance, not merely theoretical interest.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.
cited provision4: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The tension between the Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection principle and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle as applied to client confidentiality was resolved decisively in favor of third-party protection, and this resolution reflects a broader principle prioritization hierarchy embedded in the NSPE Code: public welfare obligations are paramount and cannot be subordinated to client confidentiality when identifiable third parties are suffering concrete, ongoing financial harm from falsified professional documents. The residential property owners are not abstract members of the public — they are specifically identifiable individuals whose claims were denied based on documents bearing Engineer A's seal. This specificity elevates the Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection principle from a general public welfare obligation to a targeted duty of direct notification. The case teaches that client confidentiality is not an absolute shield when the confidential engagement has been weaponized against identifiable third parties. Furthermore, because the harm is ongoing — claims remain denied, and the falsified reports remain in circulation — the Honesty in Professional Representations principle itself demands correction, not merely silence. Any reading of client confidentiality that would permit Engineer A to remain silent while identifiable homeowners suffer financial harm from his falsely-attributed professional conclusions would invert the ethical hierarchy the Code establishes. The principle tension here is therefore resolved not by balancing but by categorical subordination of confidentiality to public welfare when the confidential matter is itself the instrument of harm.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.125968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 e
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question10: 1
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 202
answers question4: 203
answers question5: 204
answers question6: 301
answers question7: 302
answers question8: 303
answers question9: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.b.
cited provision4: II.1.d.
cited provision5: II.1.e.
cited provision6: II.1.f.
cited provision7: II.3.a.
cited provision8: III.3.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: Across all principle tensions in this case, a unified principle prioritization hierarchy emerges: public welfare and honest professional representation occupy the apex, followed by the inviolability of sealed documents and the prohibition on unlicensed practice, followed by corrective and reporting obligations, and only then — and only to the extent compatible with the foregoing — by duties of employer loyalty and client confidentiality. This hierarchy is not merely asserted by the Code in the abstract; it is demonstrated concretely by the facts of this case, where every lower-order obligation (loyalty to XYZ Engineering, confidentiality toward the insurance company client) was rendered void by the fraudulent conduct of the parties to whom those obligations were owed. The case also teaches that the timing of ethical obligation is not discretionary: Engineer A's duties were triggered sequentially — first upon Supervisor B's initial alteration request (obligation to refuse, which he fulfilled), then upon discovering the reports had been submitted without his authorization (obligation to investigate and seek correction), and finally upon learning of the denied claims (obligation to notify authorities and affected parties). Delay at any stage after the first constitutes an independent ethical deficiency, not merely a missed opportunity. The principle synthesis this case offers is therefore both hierarchical and temporal: the right principles must be applied in the right order, at the right moment, with the right scope of action.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Conduct Property Inspections
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Findings could expose the firm to pressure from the client to alter conclusions
foreseen unintended effects: Findings favorable to property owners could conflict with insurance company's financial interests
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to act as a faithful agent to the client while protecting public welfare
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to perform services only in areas of competence (structural assessment)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to use professional knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare
guided by principle text: Objectivity and impartiality in professional assessments
guided by principle text: Public safety and welfare as paramount concern
guided by principle text: Technical integrity in engineering evaluations
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Accurately assess structural damage and determine whether it is hurricane-related or attributable to pre-existing conditions, fulfilling the contractual scope of work
requires capability text: Knowledge of hurricane damage patterns versus pre-existing structural deterioration
requires capability text: Professional judgment in causation analysis
requires capability text: Structural engineering assessment
temporal marker: During inspection phase, after XYZ Engineering is hired by the insurance company
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A visits and performs structural assessments of residential properties damaged by the hurricane, applying professional judgment to evaluate the nature and cause of the damage.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: When Supervisor B — a non-licensed, non-engineer principal — directs Engineer A to change sealed forensic report conclusions from hurricane-related damage to pre-existing structural conditions without providing any factual or technical basis, what is Engineer A's immediate professional obligation?
focus: Engineer A's immediate obligation upon Supervisor B's request to alter sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis
option1: Refuse the alteration request, document the refusal in writing to XYZ Engineering leadership, and formally notify the firm that the sealed reports cannot be modified without a factual and technical basis
option2: Refuse the alteration request verbally and await further direction from Supervisor B or firm leadership before taking any additional formal action, treating the request as a supervisory disagreement to be resolved internally
option3: Engage Supervisor B in a technical dialogue to determine whether any legitimate factual basis exists for the requested change, and offer to revise the report only if Supervisor B can provide documented site evidence or engineering data that Engineer A did not have access to during the original inspection
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: After Engineer A refused Supervisor B's alteration request, Supervisor B covertly altered the sealed reports and transmitted them to the insurance company, causing legitimate hurricane damage claims to be denied. Upon learning of this — whether through his own discovery or through contact from affected property owners — what corrective obligations does Engineer A bear, and does delay in acting itself constitute an independent ethical violation?
focus: Engineer A's corrective obligations upon discovering that Supervisor B covertly altered and transmitted his sealed reports to the insurance company without his knowledge or consent
option1: Upon learning of the alteration, immediately investigate the scope of changes, preserve copies of original sealed reports, formally demand correction from XYZ Engineering in writing, and concurrently notify the state engineering licensure board and appropriate enforcement authorities without waiting for internal resolution
option2: Upon learning of the alteration, formally demand in writing that XYZ Engineering withdraw and correct the falsified reports, and escalate to the licensing board and enforcement authorities only if XYZ Engineering fails to take corrective action within a defined reasonable timeframe
option3: Upon learning of the alteration, document Engineer A's original findings and the unauthorized nature of the changes, and report the matter to the state engineering licensure board while simultaneously cooperating with any internal XYZ Engineering investigation to preserve the possibility of firm-level correction before regulatory proceedings conclude
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: The residential property owners are identifiable individuals who have already suffered concrete financial harm from insurance claim denials based on falsified reports bearing Engineer A's seal. Does Engineer A bear an independent obligation to directly notify those property owners — beyond notifying the licensing board and enforcement authorities — and does any residual client confidentiality interest in the insurance company engagement limit that notification duty?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to directly notify the residential property owners whose insurance claims were denied based on the falsified reports bearing his seal
option1: Directly notify each identifiable property owner in writing that the reports bearing Engineer A's seal were altered without his knowledge or consent, that the submitted reports do not reflect his professional findings, and that he is taking corrective action — providing sufficient detail for the owners to challenge the insurance denials through legal or regulatory channels
option2: Report the falsification to the state engineering licensure board and enforcement authorities with a full account of the original findings, and rely on those authorities to notify or compel notification of affected property owners through official regulatory channels rather than making direct contact that could interfere with proceedings or expose Engineer A to legal risk
option3: Notify the property owners who have already contacted Engineer A directly — responding to their specific inquiries with a full account of the original findings and the unauthorized alteration — while routing notification of owners who have not yet made contact through the licensing board and enforcement authorities
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, unilaterally altered Engineer A's signed and sealed forensic reports to change engineering causation conclusions — substituting a judgment that damage was due to pre-existing structural conditions for Engineer A's finding of hurricane-related structural damage. Does this conduct constitute unlawful practice of engineering, and does Engineer A bear a non-delegable duty to report it to the state licensing board independent of whether XYZ Engineering takes internal corrective action?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to report Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of sealed reports as unlicensed practice of engineering to the state licensing board, independent of internal firm resolution
option1: Report Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of sealed engineering reports to the state engineering licensure board as unlicensed practice of engineering, independent of and without waiting for any internal XYZ Engineering corrective action, and simultaneously notify appropriate enforcement authorities
option2: Formally demand in writing that XYZ Engineering withdraw the falsified reports and take disciplinary action against Supervisor B, and report to the licensing board only if the firm fails to take adequate corrective action within a defined period — treating internal escalation as the primary corrective mechanism and licensing board reporting as a backstop
option3: Report the falsification and the firm's conduct to the state engineering licensure board while simultaneously escalating internally to XYZ Engineering's senior leadership and legal counsel, pursuing both channels concurrently to maximize the probability of prompt correction while creating an official record of the unlicensed practice
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: XYZ Engineering — through Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration and transmission of Engineer A's sealed reports — has engaged in fraudulent conduct that harmed identifiable third parties. Engineer A is obligated to disengage from professional association with the firm under NSPE Code II.1.d, but fulfilling his corrective obligations may require continued access to firm records. How should Engineer A sequence disengagement relative to his corrective and reporting duties, and does immediate resignation without prior corrective action constitute a sufficient ethical response?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to disengage from professional association with XYZ Engineering upon discovering that the firm has committed fraud using his sealed documents, and the sequencing of that disengagement relative to corrective obligations
option1: Before or concurrent with resignation, document and preserve all evidence of original reports and alterations, formally notify XYZ Engineering in writing that altered reports must be corrected or withdrawn, report to the state licensing board and enforcement authorities, and directly notify affected property owners — then disengage from employment without undue delay
option2: Immediately resign from XYZ Engineering upon confirming the alteration and fraudulent submission, and fulfill all corrective and reporting obligations — licensing board notification, enforcement authority contact, and property owner notification — as an independent professional after departure, without relying on continued access to firm records
option3: Remain employed at XYZ Engineering long enough to conduct a thorough internal investigation, secure complete copies of all altered and original reports, and attempt to compel internal correction through senior leadership or legal counsel — resigning and reporting to external authorities only after internal corrective channels have been exhausted or have demonstrably failed
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Engineer A's professional seal on the hurricane damage assessment reports creates a continuing public representation of professional responsibility for those documents. Supervisor B covertly altered those reports without Engineer A's knowledge or consent. Can Engineer A be simultaneously accountable for the integrity of documents he did not alter and absolved of moral responsibility for the specific act of falsification — and if so, does that accountability asymmetry create an unconditional affirmative duty to correct the record, or does the covert nature of the alteration limit Engineer A's residual obligations?
focus: The tension between Engineer A's ongoing professional accountability for sealed documents bearing his seal and his non-culpability for the covert unauthorized alteration — and whether accountability without culpability creates an affirmative corrective duty
option1: Treat the ongoing circulation of falsified reports bearing his seal as creating an unconditional affirmative corrective duty — publicly disavow the altered versions, provide the original findings to all relevant parties, and take all available steps to correct the record, recognizing that inaction after discovery constitutes constructive ratification of the falsification
option2: Treat the covert and unauthorized nature of the alteration as limiting Engineer A's residual accountability to reporting the falsification to the licensing board and enforcement authorities — fulfilling the corrective obligation through official channels while declining to make direct public statements about the altered reports on the grounds that doing so could prejudice ongoing regulatory or legal proceedings
option3: Formally document and preserve Engineer A's original findings and the unauthorized nature of the alterations, provide that documentation to the licensing board and to any party who requests it — including property owners and their legal representatives — while refraining from proactive public disavowal until the licensing board has made an official determination, to avoid prejudging a matter under regulatory review
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A BER 09-6 Documentation Failure
type: SealedDocumentModificationDocumentationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sealed Document Modification Documentation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to document the changes he made to Engineer B's sealed documents, taking no steps to identify or record the actual modifications made.
casecontext: BER Case 09-6: Engineer A made undocumented changes to Engineer B's sealed design documents
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Absence of any documentation of changes made to Engineer B's work, despite company practice requiring initialing of revision blocks
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A BER Case 09-6 Document Modifier
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
textreferences: It was the practice of the company to require that a professional engineer manually initial the revision block of the document being revised, identifying the responsible engineer.
textreferences: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.307869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A BER 09-6 Management Pressure Resistance Failure
type: ManagementPressureResistanceinPeerDocumentModificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Management Pressure Resistance in Peer Document Modification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to resist management pressure to complete and release design documents, instead proceeding with unauthorized modification of Engineer B's sealed documents when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available.
casecontext: BER Case 09-6: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete work, leading to unauthorized peer document modification
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Yielding to management encouragement to complete work by modifying Engineer B's sealed documents without consent rather than seeking alternatives or escalating
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A BER Case 09-6 Document Modifier
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released.
textreferences: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released.
textreferences: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.308005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A BER 09-6 Peer Consent Failure
type: PeerEngineerSealedDocumentModificationPriorConsentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Engineer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to obtain prior consent from Engineer B before modifying Engineer B's sealed design documents, proceeding without consultation despite being technically competent to make the changes.
casecontext: BER Case 09-6: Engineer A modified Engineer B's sealed design documents without prior consent under management pressure to release documents for construction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Making minor changes to Engineer B's sealed design documents without consulting Engineer B, under management pressure and in Engineer B's absence
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A BER Case 09-6 Document Modifier
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.307730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Insurance Assessment Constraint
type: EngineerExpertNon-AdvocateIndependenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by a property insurance company to assess hurricane damage. The insurer's financial interest was in characterizing damage as pre-existing (not covered). Engineer A's professional obligation required objective findings, not advocacy for the insurer's position.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, retained by the property insurance company to conduct forensic structural assessments, was prohibited from adopting the role of an advocate for the insurer's financial interest in claim denial — his professional duty was to render objective, technically honest findings based on observed conditions, and he was constrained from altering those findings to serve the insurer's adversarial interest in characterizing damage as pre-existing rather than hurricane-related.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a (objective and truthful professional statements); NSPE Code Section III.2.a (honesty and integrity); BER Case 95-5 (forensic expert objectivity and non-advocacy)
sourcetext: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
temporalscope: Throughout the hurricane damage assessment engagement
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.303823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Report Objectivity and Completeness
type: ForensicExpertWitnessHonestyandIntegrityinReportPreparationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Honesty and Integrity in Report Preparation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to prepare hurricane damage assessment reports with honesty and integrity, rendering objective technical findings based on his inspection and structural assessment rather than on the insurance company client's preferred causation outcome.
casecontext: Engineer A prepared objective sealed reports finding hurricane-related damage despite the insurance company client's commercial interest in finding pre-existing conditions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Preparation of sealed reports finding hurricane-related damage in the majority of inspected properties, reflecting actual professional findings rather than client-preferred conclusions.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Fraudulent Firm Disengagement
type: FraudulentFirmDisengagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fraudulent Firm Disengagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that continued professional association with XYZ Engineering — after discovering that Supervisor B had fraudulently altered and transmitted his sealed reports — constituted an ethical violation, and to disengage from that professional association.
casecontext: Upon discovering that Supervisor B had altered and transmitted his sealed reports, Engineer A bore an obligation to disengage from professional association with XYZ Engineering.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Professional obligation arising from discovery that XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's actions, had engaged in fraudulent conduct using Engineer A's sealed professional reports.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Technical Competence
type: HurricaneDamageForensicAssessmentTechnicalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Hurricane Damage Forensic Assessment Technical Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the domain-specific technical competence to conduct forensic structural assessments of hurricane-damaged residential properties, differentiate hurricane-related damage from pre-existing structural conditions, and prepare technically defensible sealed assessment reports.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by XYZ Engineering to inspect hurricane-damaged properties and determine damage causation for insurance claim purposes.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Preparation of a series of sealed hurricane damage assessment reports, the majority of which found hurricane-related damage, based on personal inspection and structural assessment of residential properties.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Insurance Assessment Objectivity
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to maintain complete objectivity in his hurricane damage assessments despite the insurance company client's commercial interest in minimizing covered claims, reporting findings based solely on technical evidence and refusing to alter conclusions to favor the client's preferred outcome.
casecontext: Engineer A maintained objective findings of hurricane-related damage despite the insurance company client's interest in finding pre-existing conditions, and refused Supervisor B's direction to alter those findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Preparation of reports finding hurricane-related damage in the majority of inspected properties, and refusal to alter those findings at Supervisor B's direction despite the absence of factual or technical basis for the requested changes.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Insurance Assessment Objectivity Constraint
type: InsuranceAssessmentEngineerNon-AdvocateObjectivityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by a property insurance company to assess whether residential property damage was hurricane-related (covered) or pre-existing (not covered). Engineer A's professional obligation required objective findings based on technical evidence, not findings shaped by the insurer's financial interest in claim denial.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Insurance Assessment Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from altering his hurricane damage assessment findings to favor the property insurance company's financial interest in denying claims — his obligation was to render objective, technically honest findings based solely on observed conditions and professional judgment, regardless of the insurer's implicit or explicit interest in characterizing damage as pre-existing rather than hurricane-related.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a (objective and truthful professional statements); NSPE Code Section III.2.a (honesty and integrity in professional reports); BER Case 95-5 (forensic expert objectivity)
sourcetext: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
temporalscope: Throughout the hurricane damage assessment engagement
textreferences: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
textreferences: The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.304130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition in Hurricane Assessment
type: IntentionalInformationDisregardProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's actual findings were that the majority of residential property damage was hurricane-related. Supervisor B directed alteration of those findings to indicate pre-existing structural conditions without any factual or technical basis — a paradigmatic case of intentional disregard of material technical information.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A / Supervisor B (as directing party)
constraintclass: Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from intentionally disregarding or selectively omitting his actual technical findings — that the majority of residential property damage was hurricane-related — from the sealed reports at Supervisor B's direction, and Supervisor B was prohibited from causing such disregard through unauthorized alteration of the sealed documents, establishing that the prohibition on intentional information disregard applies both to the engineer directly and to non-engineer principals who cause such disregard through unauthorized document modification.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a (objective and truthful professional statements); NSPE Code Section III.2.b (non-falsification); BER Case 95-5 (prohibition on selective data use)
sourcetext: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
temporalscope: At the time of report preparation and at the time of Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration
textreferences: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.305150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Association with XYZ Engineering Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A learned from affected property owners that his sealed reports had been altered to deny legitimate hurricane damage claims. At this point, continued association with XYZ Engineering — whose principal had engaged in fraudulent alteration of sealed engineering documents — became ethically impermissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon discovering that Supervisor B had covertly altered his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports and transmitted them to the client as if they represented his actual professional findings — thereby engaging XYZ Engineering in a fraudulent enterprise — Engineer A was prohibited from permitting the continued use of his name or continuing professional association with XYZ Engineering in connection with this fraudulent conduct.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.d (non-association with fraudulent enterprise); NSPE Code Section III.2.b (non-falsification)
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery that his sealed reports had been altered and transmitted with falsified findings
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.304274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Principal Boundary Recognition
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalEngineeringAuthorityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Principal Engineering Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Supervisor B, as a non-licensed non-engineer principal, lacked the professional authority to direct alterations to signed and sealed engineering reports, and that Supervisor B's direction crossed the boundary of permissible non-engineer firm management authority.
casecontext: Engineer A recognized and refused Supervisor B's direction to alter sealed reports, demonstrating awareness of the boundary between permissible firm management and impermissible non-engineer control over sealed engineering documents.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Refusal to alter sealed reports at Supervisor B's direction, based on recognition that the direction lacked factual or technical basis and that Supervisor B lacked engineering authority to direct changes to sealed professional conclusions.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Supervisor Alteration Refusal
type: SealedDocumentIntegrityDefenseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sealed Document Integrity Defense Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Supervisor B's direction to alter sealed hurricane damage assessment reports lacked factual or technical basis and that Supervisor B, as a non-engineer principal, lacked professional authority to direct changes to sealed engineering conclusions, and to refuse compliance with that direction.
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed Engineer A to change hurricane-damage findings to pre-existing condition findings; Engineer A refused.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Refusal to alter signed and sealed reports at Supervisor B's direction upon finding no factual or technical basis for the requested changes.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Obligation to Investigate and Correct Altered Reports
type: UnauthorizedPost-SealDocumentModificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery of the alteration through required correction and resolution
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property owners
affectedparties: Public relying on the reports
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings
stateclass: Unauthorized Post-Seal Document Modification State
subject: Engineer A's professional obligation upon discovering that sealed reports have been covertly altered
terminatedby: Immediate correction of the misrepresented conclusions and withdrawal or replacement of the falsified documents
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand
triggeringevent: Discovery that Engineer A's sealed reports were altered by the non-engineer principal after Engineer A refused to make the changes
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.303679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Fraudulent Firm Disengagement
type: FraudulentFirmDisengagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Fraudulent Firm Disengagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must exercise the capability to disengage from professional association with XYZ Engineering upon discovering that Supervisor B has altered his sealed reports — recognizing that continued association constitutes complicity in the fraudulent enterprise.
casecontext: Present case: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B, altered and transmitted Engineer A's sealed reports — Engineer A must disengage from professional association with the firm
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to disengage from XYZ Engineering after discovering unauthorized alteration and transmission of sealed reports
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.308731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Insurance Assessment Objectivity
type: InsuranceAssessmentObjectivityUnderCommercialPressureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Insurance Assessment Objectivity Under Commercial Pressure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to prepare objective hurricane damage assessment reports reflecting actual professional findings — reporting major hurricane damage rather than pre-existing conditions — consistent with professional obligations of honesty and integrity despite the insurance company client's commercial interest in minimizing covered claims.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A prepared objective assessments finding hurricane damage; Supervisor B altered them to serve the insurance company's commercial interest in denying claims
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Preparation of signed and sealed reports finding major hurricane damage, which Supervisor B subsequently altered to indicate pre-existing conditions
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Non-Engineer Supervisor Refusal
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorReportAlterationRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse Supervisor B's direction to alter the sealed hurricane damage assessment reports, recognizing that Supervisor B lacked professional engineering authority to direct changes to sealed engineering conclusions.
casecontext: Present case: Supervisor B directed Engineer A to alter sealed reports; Engineer A was obligated to refuse
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to refuse Supervisor B's direction to alter conclusions from hurricane damage to pre-existing conditions without factual or technical basis
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.308450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Sealed Document Integrity Significance
type: SignedandSealedDocumentIntegritySignificanceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Signed and Sealed Document Integrity Significance Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must recognize and act upon the full professional significance of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports — understanding that Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration thoroughly compromises the integrity of the sealing process and cannot be permitted to stand.
casecontext: Present case: Supervisor B altered Engineer A's sealed reports, reversing findings — Engineer A must recognize the fundamental professional significance of this violation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that unauthorized post-seal alteration by Supervisor B undermines the veracity and integrity of the professional accountability process embodied in the signed and sealed reports
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them.
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.308284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Sealed Report Alteration Investigation
type: SealedReportAlterationInvestigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sealed Report Alteration Investigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A is obligated to exercise the capability to investigate the apparent reversal of his findings in the sealed hurricane damage assessment reports — taking necessary steps to understand what occurred, demanding explanation, and requiring immediate correction if misrepresentation is confirmed.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports appear to have been altered by Supervisor B to reverse findings from hurricane damage to pre-existing conditions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to investigate apparent reversal of findings and require correction if no legitimate basis for alteration exists
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.308144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Sealed Report Detection
type: SealedReportUnauthorizedAlterationDetectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Detection Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must exercise the capability to detect that his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports have been altered without authorization by Supervisor B — comparing original findings against the altered conclusions transmitted to the insurance company.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A's sealed reports were altered by Supervisor B to reverse findings from hurricane damage to pre-existing conditions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the apparent reversal of findings in sealed reports constitutes unauthorized alteration requiring investigation and correction
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.308595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Third-Party Notification
type: Post-AlterationThird-PartyHarmNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Alteration Third-Party Harm Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must exercise the capability to directly notify the residential property owners whose insurance claims were wrongfully denied based on the altered versions of his sealed reports, providing them with accurate information about his original findings.
casecontext: Present case: Residential property owners had legitimate hurricane damage claims denied based on Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to notify affected property owners of the alteration and provide accurate original findings so they can pursue appropriate remedies
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.308882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation After Alteration Discovery
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the unauthorized alteration of his sealed reports — and the resulting wrongful denial of legitimate hurricane damage insurance claims — constituted a public welfare harm requiring escalation beyond the client relationship to appropriate professional and regulatory authorities.
casecontext: Upon discovering that Supervisor B had altered his sealed reports causing wrongful claim denials, Engineer A bore an obligation to escalate the matter to appropriate authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Professional obligation arising from discovery that fraudulent alteration of sealed reports caused direct financial harm to residential property owners, requiring escalation to licensing boards, professional bodies, and potentially law enforcement.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation After Falsification Discovery Constraint
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Residential property owners whose legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on falsified sealed reports may have been left without resources to repair structurally damaged homes, creating a public safety risk. Engineer A's paramount public safety obligation required escalation to protect those owners.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon discovering that his sealed reports had been falsified and that residential property owners had been wrongfully denied legitimate hurricane damage insurance claims — potentially leaving them without resources to repair structurally damaged homes — Engineer A's paramount obligation to public health, safety, and welfare required escalation beyond the firm to notify the client insurer, the state licensing board, and the affected property owners, prohibiting passive acceptance of the situation on the grounds that his internal refusal had already been registered.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I (public safety paramount); NSPE Code Section II.1.a; NSPE Code Section II.1.e
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery that affected property owners had been harmed by the falsified reports
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.302359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Sealed Report Alteration Detection
type: SealedReportUnauthorizedAlterationDetectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Detection Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to detect, through third-party feedback from affected property owners, that his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports had been altered without authorization to change hurricane-related damage findings to pre-existing condition findings.
casecontext: Engineer A learned from residential property owners that their insurance claims were denied based on sealed reports indicating pre-existing conditions, contradicting his original hurricane-damage findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that property owners' reports of claim denials based on pre-existing condition findings contradicted his original sealed findings of hurricane-related damage, enabling identification of unauthorized post-seal alteration.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.296883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Sealed Report Alteration Refusal Constraint
type: Non-AidingUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B directed Engineer A to change sealed report findings from hurricane-related to pre-existing structural condition without factual or technical basis. Engineer A correctly refused, recognizing that compliance would have constituted aiding unlicensed engineering practice and falsifying professional findings.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from altering his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports at Supervisor B's direction when no factual or technical basis existed for the requested changes — because complying would have constituted aiding Supervisor B's unlicensed exercise of engineering judgment over sealed professional documents and would have falsified the engineer's professional findings.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; NSPE Code Section II.3.a (objective and truthful professional statements); state engineering practice acts
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: At the time Supervisor B directed Engineer A to alter the sealed reports
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.296729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Sealed Report Post-Alteration Correction Constraint
type: SealedReportIntegrityPost-AlterationCorrectionObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A learned from affected residential property owners that his sealed reports had been altered to show pre-existing structural conditions rather than hurricane damage, resulting in wrongful denial of legitimate insurance claims. Engineer A's professional obligations required immediate corrective action rather than passive acceptance of the situation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Sealed Report Integrity Post-Alteration Correction Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon learning from affected property owners that his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports had been covertly altered by Supervisor B and transmitted to the insurance company — resulting in wrongful denial of legitimate claims — Engineer A was prohibited from remaining passive or silent, and was required to take immediate corrective action including notifying the client insurer, providing corrected reports, reporting Supervisor B's conduct to the state licensing board, and directly notifying the affected property owners.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a (public safety paramount); NSPE Code Section II.3.a (objective and truthful); NSPE Code Section III.2.b (non-falsification); state engineering practice acts
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery that his sealed reports had been altered and transmitted with falsified findings, causing harm to property owners
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.304433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Stamped Document Continuing Accountability
type: StampedDocumentOngoingTechnicalAccountabilityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Stamped Document Ongoing Technical Accountability Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that affixing his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for their technical content — including the obligation to take corrective action when those reports were altered without authorization and transmitted as if they represented his professional findings.
casecontext: Engineer A's sealed reports were altered and transmitted by Supervisor B, creating a situation where the seal implied Engineer A's professional endorsement of findings he had not made.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the seal on his reports created ongoing accountability obligations that persisted after Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration and transmission of the reports.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Stamped Document Continuing Accountability Constraint
type: StampedDocumentOngoingTechnicalAccountabilityNon-AbandonmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports that were subsequently altered by Supervisor B. The professional seal created a continuing accountability obligation requiring Engineer A to take corrective action upon discovering the falsification, not merely to note that his internal refusal had been registered.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Stamped Document Ongoing Technical Accountability Non-Abandonment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for the technical integrity and accuracy of those documents — prohibiting Engineer A from abandoning or disavowing responsibility for the reports upon learning they had been falsified, and requiring instead that he take affirmative corrective action to restore the accuracy of the professional record.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2 (responsible charge and seal obligations); BER Case 86-2; BER Case 09-6; state engineering practice acts governing the significance of the professional seal
sourcetext: He then signs and seals the reports.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A signed and sealed the reports through discovery of the falsification and beyond
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.304861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Third-Party Property Owner Direct Notification Constraint
type: SealedReportPost-TransmissionFalsificationThird-PartyHarmNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Residential property owners whose legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on falsified versions of Engineer A's sealed reports contacted Engineer A directly. Engineer A's professional obligations required direct notification to those owners of the falsification, not merely internal or regulatory reporting.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Sealed Report Post-Transmission Falsification Third-Party Harm Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon learning that his sealed reports had been falsified and that identifiable residential property owners had suffered direct, concrete harm — wrongful denial of legitimate hurricane damage insurance claims — Engineer A was prohibited from limiting notification to the client insurer or the licensing board alone, and was required to directly notify the affected property owners of the falsification so they could seek correction of their claims.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a (public safety and welfare paramount); NSPE Code Section III.2.a (honesty and integrity); professional obligation to protect third parties harmed by falsified professional documents
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery that affected property owners had been harmed by the falsified reports
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.304572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Third-Party Property Owner Notification
type: Post-AlterationThird-PartyHarmNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Alteration Third-Party Harm Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional obligation to directly notify the residential property owners whose insurance claims were wrongfully denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports, providing them with accurate information about his original findings to enable pursuit of appropriate remedies.
casecontext: Residential property owners contacted Engineer A to report that their claims were denied based on altered reports; Engineer A bore an obligation to notify them of the alteration and provide accurate original findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Professional obligation arising from discovery that property owners suffered direct financial harm from fraudulent alteration of his sealed reports, requiring direct notification and corrective information provision.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Recognition of Supervisor B
type: UnlicensedPracticeRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Supervisor B's direction to alter sealed engineering reports — and Supervisor B's subsequent unauthorized alteration and transmission of those reports — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering by a non-licensed individual exercising control over sealed professional engineering documents.
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal, directed alterations to sealed reports and then transmitted altered versions to the insurance company client after Engineer A refused to make the changes.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that Supervisor B's actions in reviewing, directing alterations to, and transmitting altered sealed engineering reports exceeded the authority of a non-licensed firm principal and constituted unlicensed engineering practice.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting Obligation
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingandChallengeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional obligation to report Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration and transmission of sealed engineering reports — constituting unlicensed engineering practice — to the appropriate state licensing board and professional bodies.
casecontext: Upon discovering that Supervisor B had altered and transmitted his sealed reports, Engineer A bore an obligation to report this unlicensed practice to the state engineering licensing board.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Professional obligation arising from discovery that Supervisor B had altered and transmitted sealed reports without engineering authority, triggering reporting duties to licensing authorities.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.297330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting of Supervisor B Constraint
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal, unilaterally altered Engineer A's sealed engineering reports — an act constituting the unlicensed practice of engineering — and transmitted them to the client. Engineer A's professional obligations required reporting this unlicensed practice to the state licensing board.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon discovering that Supervisor B — a non-licensed non-engineer principal — had exercised engineering judgment by altering Engineer A's signed and sealed structural assessment reports without factual or technical basis, thereby engaging in the unlawful practice of engineering, Engineer A was required to report Supervisor B's conduct to the state engineering licensing board.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2.e (reporting violations); state engineering practice acts prohibiting unlicensed practice; professional obligation to report unlicensed practice
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery that Supervisor B had altered and transmitted the falsified sealed reports
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.304717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A preparing reports before Engineer A signing and sealing reports
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering...He then signs and seals the reports
from entity text: Engineer A preparing reports
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A signing and sealing reports
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A signing and sealing reports
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A refusing to make changes before Supervisor B sending reports to insurance company
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A refuses to make the changes. Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
from entity text: Engineer A refusing to make changes
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Supervisor B sending reports to insurance company
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Supervisor B sending reports to insurance company
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A signing and sealing reports before Supervisor B reviewing the reports
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: He then signs and seals the reports. Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering...reviews the reports
from entity text: Engineer A signing and sealing reports
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Supervisor B reviewing the reports
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Supervisor B reviewing the reports
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A's inspection and original findings before apparent falsification of sealed reports
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A visits the residential properties and...prepares a series of reports...The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related...the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
from entity text: Engineer A's inspection and original findings
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: apparent falsification of sealed reports
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: apparent falsification of sealed reports
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A's property inspections before Engineer A preparing reports
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports
from entity text: Engineer A's property inspections
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A preparing reports
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A preparing reports
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer B BER Case 09-6 Document Owner
type: EngineerofRecordforSealedDocuments
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Electrical engineering', 'status': 'Unavailable when unauthorized modifications were made'}
caseinvolvement: Prepared, designed, and sealed design documents for an assigned scope of a shared project; had documents modified without knowledge or consent by Engineer A under management pressure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Engineering Firm Management BER Case 09-6'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A BER Case 09-6 Document Modifier'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Engineer of Record for Sealed Documents
sourcetext: Engineer B prepared, designed, and sealed the design documents for which she was responsible
textreferences: Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer B prepared, designed, and sealed the design documents for which she was responsible
textreferences: when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.288352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard - Third-Party Harm Context
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Duty to Escalate When Third Parties Are Harmed by Altered Reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied
usedby: Engineer A in determining escalation obligations after discovering the harm to property owners
usedincontext: Grounds Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond the firm and client to notify regulatory authorities, the state licensing board, and affected property owners when he discovers that his sealed reports were altered and used to wrongfully deny insurance claims.
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.286948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard - Report Falsification
type: EngineerReportingObligationtoLicensingBoardStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.86
createdby: State engineering licensing board
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Licensing Board Rules Governing Reporting of Professional Conduct Violations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report
usedby: Engineer A in determining reporting obligations to the state licensing board
usedincontext: Establishes Engineer A's affirmative duty to report to the state licensing board the unauthorized alteration of his sealed reports by Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal, constituting a violation of professional conduct rules and potentially unlicensed practice of engineering.
version: Applicable state rules
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.287091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer Stamped Document Responsibility Standard
type: EngineerStampedDocumentResponsibilityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Responsibility for Stamped Documents
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Stamped Document Responsibility Standard
sourcetext: He then signs and seals the reports
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
usedby: Engineer A upon learning that his sealed reports were altered and used to deny insurance claims
usedincontext: Establishes Engineer A's ongoing professional responsibility for the reports he signed and sealed, including the duty to take corrective action when he discovers those reports have been altered and submitted under his seal with findings he did not make.
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.286476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineering Firm Management BER Case 09-6
type: Report-AlteringNon-EngineerSupervisor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Not specified', 'authority': 'Management authority over project release schedule'}
caseinvolvement: Strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete work and release design documents, creating management pressure that led to unauthorized modification of Engineer B's sealed documents; analogous to supervisory pressure that compromises engineering document integrity.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.72
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer A BER Case 09-6 Document Modifier'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER Case 09-6 Document Owner'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
sourcetext: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released
textreferences: In completing his work at the behest of management, Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B
textreferences: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.302053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineering_Intern_Supervision_Standard_Responsible_Charge
type: EngineeringInternSupervisionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE BER
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Responsible Charge / Direct Control and Personal Supervision Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineering Intern Supervision Standard
sourcetext: were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them
textreferences: Engineer A clearly did not exercise responsible charge (direct control or personal supervision) over the work in question
textreferences: were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in articulating the standard for sealing engineering documents
usedincontext: Referenced to define the meaning of 'responsible charge' as direct control and personal supervision, establishing the threshold that must be met before an engineer may sign and seal documents prepared by others
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.287930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard - Insurance Assessment Context
type: ForensicEngineeringReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.86
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Accuracy and Integrity of Engineering Assessment Reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
usedby: Engineer A and ethical reviewers analyzing the obligations arising from the altered reports
usedincontext: Establishes that engineering assessment reports must accurately reflect the engineer's findings and may not be altered to serve the financial interests of the retaining party, and that the engineer has a duty to disclose and correct inaccuracies when discovered.
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.286807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Hurricane Causes Property Damage
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Damage_Assessment_Required
activates constraint: Public_Interest_Protection
causes state change: Residential properties damaged; insurance claims filed; insurance company initiates engineering assessment process; XYZ Engineering contracted
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_Obligation_To_Inspect_Accurately
creates obligation: Insurance_Company_Obligation_To_Assess_Claims
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Beginning of case; prior to all engineering activity
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: high
comment: A hurricane strikes and causes widespread residential property damage, triggering insurance claims by affected property owners. This exogenous natural disaster sets the entire case narrative in motion.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

II.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

II.1.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

II.1.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

III.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

III.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Insurance Assessment Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Constraint — Engineer A Hurricane Assessments
type: InsuranceAssessmentEngineerNon-AdvocateObjectivityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A performed hurricane damage assessments for a property insurance company; Supervisor B directed alteration of findings to indicate pre-existing damage rather than storm-related damage, serving the insurer's financial interest in denying claims
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Insurance Assessment Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to render objective, technically honest hurricane damage assessment findings based solely on observed conditions and professional judgment — prohibiting any alteration of findings to favor the insurer's financial interest in characterizing damage as pre-existing rather than storm-related when the technical evidence supported storm-related causation.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; forensic engineering professional standards
sourcetext: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer.
temporalscope: Throughout the performance of hurricane damage assessments for the property insurance company
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client.
textreferences: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.307436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Insurance_Claim_Engineering_Assessment_Integrity_Standard_Instance
type: InsuranceClaimEngineeringAssessmentIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE BER
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Insurance Claim Engineering Assessment Integrity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Insurance Claim Engineering Assessment Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings
textreferences: Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report
textreferences: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations after discovering his sealed report was altered
usedincontext: Applied to establish Engineer A's obligation to provide an objective and unbiased assessment of property damage and to resist alteration of findings to favor the retaining insurer's financial interests, grounding the duty to seek correction of the reversed findings
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.301712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Insurance Claims Denied Based on Altered Reports
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Falsification_Prohibition_Constraint
activates constraint: Mandatory_Correction_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Harm_Prevention_Constraint
causes state change: Property owners suffer concrete financial harm; insurance claims process corrupted by falsified engineering evidence; Engineer A's sealed documents have been weaponized against the people they were meant to protect
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Notify_Insurance_Company_Of_Falsification
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Notify_Licensing_Board
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Seek_Correction_Of_Falsified_Reports
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After altered reports transmitted to insurance company; before property owners contact Engineer A
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: critical
comment: The insurance company denies property owners' claims, relying on the altered reports bearing Engineer A's seal that now attribute damage to pre-existing conditions rather than the hurricane. This outcome directly harms property owners and is the concrete consequence of the falsification.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Management Pressure Responsible Charge Non-Bypass Constraint — Engineer A BER 09-6
type: ManagementPressureResponsibleChargeNon-BypassConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so all design documents could be released; Engineer A complied by making changes to Engineer B's sealed documents without consultation when Engineer B was unavailable
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 09-6)
constraintclass: Management Pressure Responsible Charge Non-Bypass Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from bypassing the requirement to confer with and obtain Engineer B's approval before modifying Engineer B's sealed documents, even under management pressure to complete and release all design documents for construction — establishing that time pressure and management encouragement do not constitute justification for deviating from responsible charge and peer consent requirements.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 09-6
sourcetext: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
temporalscope: During the project revision phase when management pressure prompted Engineer A to complete and release all design documents
textreferences: Engineer A did so when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available.
textreferences: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released.
textreferences: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.294766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canon on Public Safety and Honest Conduct
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
usedby: Engineer A in refusing to alter reports and in determining obligations upon discovering the alteration
usedincontext: Grounds Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to act in an honest manner, and to refuse to alter reports without factual or technical basis; also grounds the obligation to take corrective action upon discovering the unauthorized alteration of sealed reports.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the Board found it difficult to square Engineer A's actions with the language of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the Board found it difficult to square Engineer A's actions with the language of the NSPE Code of Ethics
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Referenced as the primary normative authority governing engineer obligations regarding signing, sealing, responsible charge, and the integrity of engineering documents; cited as the standard against which Engineer A's conduct is measured
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.301102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non-Aiding Unlicensed Practice Constraint — Supervisor B Report Alteration
type: Non-AidingUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, directed Engineer A to alter sealed hurricane damage assessment reports and subsequently altered them unilaterally when Engineer A refused, constituting unlicensed practice of engineering
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from acquiescing in, facilitating, or remaining silent about Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of his sealed engineering reports — acts constituting the unlicensed practice of engineering — and was required to refuse compliance with any direction to alter his findings without factual or technical basis, regardless of Supervisor B's institutional authority as a firm principal.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; state engineering practice acts
sourcetext: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
temporalscope: From the moment Supervisor B directed alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports through Engineer A's discovery of the unauthorized alterations
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.306609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint — XYZ Engineering
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, transmitted falsified professional documents to the insurance company client, causing denial of legitimate hurricane damage claims by residential property owners
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from permitting the use of his name or continuing professional association with XYZ Engineering upon discovering that Supervisor B had altered his sealed reports and that XYZ Engineering had transmitted those falsified reports to the insurance company client — constituting a fraudulent and dishonest enterprise — regardless of employment or financial considerations.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.d
sourcetext: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A discovered that his sealed reports had been falsified and transmitted by XYZ Engineering
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.306768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non_Engineer_Supervisor_Authority_Limitation_Standard_Instance
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorAuthorityLimitationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE BER
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard
sourcetext: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the conduct of Engineer A's non-engineer supervisor who altered the sealed report
usedincontext: Applied to establish that non-licensed supervisors or principals may not direct engineers to alter technical findings without factual or technical basis, and may not unilaterally modify sealed engineering documents, grounding the prohibition on the unauthorized reversal of Engineer A's findings
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.301915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Peer Engineer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Constraint — Engineer A BER 09-6
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made minor changes to Engineer B's sealed design documents without consultation, under management pressure, when Engineer B was unavailable — even though Engineer A was technically competent to make the revisions
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 09-6)
constraintclass: Peer Engineer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from making any changes — even minor ones — to design documents prepared, designed, and sealed by Engineer B without first conferring with and gaining the approval of Engineer B, establishing that peer engineer consent is a non-negotiable prerequisite to modification of sealed documents regardless of the modifying engineer's technical competence or the urgency of project scheduling demands.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 09-6
sourcetext: In deciding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without conferring and gaining the approval of Engineer B.
temporalscope: During the project revision phase requiring modification of Engineer B's sealed design documents
textreferences: Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable.
textreferences: In deciding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without conferring and gaining the approval of Engineer B.
textreferences: It was understood that Engineer A was technically competent to make the revisions to Engineer B's work.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.307113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Prepare and Document Findings
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Majority hurricane-related findings could create financial liability for the insurer
foreseen unintended effects: Reports favorable to property owners could be unwelcome to the insurance company client
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to document professional findings accurately for use by the client
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner
guided by principle text: Responsibility to the public who will be affected by the reports
guided by principle text: Transparency in engineering documentation
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and objectivity in professional communications
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Create accurate, well-documented records of his professional findings that honestly reflect the structural conditions observed during inspections
requires capability text: Professional documentation standards
requires capability text: Structural damage causation analysis
requires capability text: Technical report writing
temporal marker: Post-inspection, prior to signing and sealing reports
temporal sequence: 4
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A prepares a series of written reports for XYZ Engineering reflecting his inspection findings, with the majority concluding that the damage was hurricane-related.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard - Report Correction Obligation
type: ProfessionalResponsibilityAcknowledgmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Duty to Acknowledge and Correct Errors and Unauthorized Alterations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report
usedby: Engineer A in determining corrective obligations after discovering the alteration
usedincontext: Grounds Engineer A's obligation to notify affected property owners, the client insurer, and potentially regulatory authorities that his sealed reports were altered without his knowledge or consent and that the altered findings do not represent his professional conclusions.
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.286615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Property Insurance Company Insurance Causation Determination Client
type: InsuranceCausationDeterminationClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Property insurance company', 'interest': 'Minimize covered claims by attributing damage to pre-existing conditions'}
caseinvolvement: Property insurance company that retained XYZ Engineering to assess hurricane-damaged residential properties and determine damage causation, received altered versions of Engineer A's signed and sealed reports, and denied property owners' legitimate hurricane damage claims based on the falsified reports
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'denied_claims_of', 'target': 'Residential Property Owners Report Alteration Victims'}
relationships: {'type': 'received_altered_reports_from', 'target': 'Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'XYZ Engineering Firm Employer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Insurance Causation Determination Client
sourcetext: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane
textreferences: their property insurance damage claims were denied
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Property Owners Discover Report Discrepancy
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Immediate_Corrective_Action_Constraint
activates constraint: Mandatory_Reporting_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Protection_Override
activates constraint: Seal_Misuse_Prevention_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A now has actual knowledge of apparent falsification of his sealed reports; all corrective and reporting obligations are fully activated; Engineer A transitions from passive victim of falsification to active obligant to seek correction
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_All_Evidence_Of_Falsification
creates obligation: Notify_Insurance_Company_Of_Falsification
creates obligation: Notify_Licensing_Board_Of_Seal_Misuse
creates obligation: Protect_Property_Owners_From_Ongoing_Harm
creates obligation: Require_Immediate_Report_Correction
creates obligation: Seek_Understanding_Of_Alterations
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After claims are denied; the triggering moment for Engineer A's corrective obligations
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: critical
comment: Property owners contact Engineer A to report that their claims were denied based on reports bearing his seal but now containing findings, attributing damage to pre-existing conditions, that differ from what Engineer A actually concluded. This event is the moment Engineer A learns of the apparent falsification.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Property Owners Discover Report Discrepancy (Event 7) → Seek Understanding of Alterations (Action 5) → Require Immediate Report Correction (Action 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Property owners contact Engineer A to report that their claims were denied based on reports bearing his seal but containing conclusions opposite to what he communicated during inspection, triggering his obligation to investigate and, if tampering is confirmed, require immediate correction
cause: Property Owners Discover Report Discrepancy (Event 7)
counterfactual: Had property owners not contacted Engineer A, or had Engineer A lacked knowledge of the alteration, the corrective obligation would not have been triggered and the fraudulent reports would have remained operative
effect: Seek Understanding of Alterations (Action 5) → Require Immediate Report Correction (Action 6)
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness of his continuing professional and ethical obligations to the public
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional seal creating a traceable link back to him
necessary factors: NSPE Code of Ethics and state licensing standards requiring engineers to correct misuse of their seal
necessary factors: Property owners possessing enough information from the inspection to recognize the discrepancy
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Discovery of discrepancy by property owners + direct communication to Engineer A + Engineer A's professional duty to protect public welfare was sufficient to obligate corrective action
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.121925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s obligations under the circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: At what point did Engineer A's professional obligations require him to act — upon Supervisor B's initial request to alter the reports, upon learning the reports were sent to the client without his knowledge, or only after the property owners informed him of the denied claims? Does delay in acting itself constitute an ethical violation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does Engineer A bear any legal or professional liability for the harm suffered by the residential property owners whose claims were denied based on the altered reports bearing his seal, even though he did not make the alterations and actively refused to do so?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Should Engineer A be obligated to directly notify the residential property owners whose claims were denied — not merely the licensing board and enforcement authorities — given that those owners are identifiable third parties suffering concrete financial harm from the falsified reports?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Is XYZ Engineering's conduct — directing a non-engineer principal to alter sealed engineering reports for the financial benefit of an insurance company client — sufficient to trigger Engineer A's obligation to disassociate from the firm entirely, and what steps must he take before or alongside that disassociation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability principle — which holds Engineer A responsible for the integrity of his sealed reports — conflict with the Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority principle when the alteration was made covertly by a non-engineer supervisor without Engineer A's knowledge or consent? Can Engineer A be simultaneously accountable for a document he did not alter and absolved because the alteration was made without his authority?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status principle — requiring Engineer A to remain objective and free from client influence — conflict with the Client Report Suppression Prohibition when the client (the insurance company) is the very party benefiting from the falsified reports? How should Engineer A navigate obligations to a client whose interests are directly served by the misconduct of Engineer A's own employer?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123316
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Professional Association Disengagement Obligation — requiring Engineer A to sever ties with XYZ Engineering — conflict with the Professional Accountability principle requiring him to remain engaged enough to investigate, correct, and report the falsification? Can Engineer A simultaneously disengage from a fraudulent enterprise and fulfill his ongoing corrective obligations that may require continued access to firm records and reports?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection principle — protecting the residential property owners — conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle as applied to Engineer A's obligations toward the insurance company client? Specifically, if notifying the property owners or authorities requires Engineer A to disclose confidential client engagement details, how should he weigh client confidentiality against the duty to protect identifiable third parties from ongoing financial harm?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to protect the integrity of signed and sealed reports by stopping at refusal alone, or does the duty extend unconditionally to active correction and reporting once alteration is discovered — regardless of personal employment consequences?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the aggregate harm suffered by residential property owners whose insurance claims were wrongly denied — based on falsified versions of Engineer A's reports — outweigh any benefit to XYZ Engineering or the insurance company, and does that calculus impose a heightened obligation on Engineer A to pursue every available corrective channel?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 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 courage and integrity not only by refusing Supervisor B's initial alteration request but also by actively pursuing correction after discovering the reports had been covertly altered and submitted — and does falling short of that active pursuit represent a failure of professional character?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Supervisor B's status as a non-engineer principal who unilaterally altered Engineer A's signed and sealed reports constitute unlawful practice of engineering — and if so, does Engineer A bear a non-negotiable duty under professional codes to report that unlicensed practice to the state licensing board, independent of any internal firm resolution?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had immediately notified the residential property owners and the state engineering licensure board upon discovering that the reports had been altered — rather than waiting until property owners contacted him — would the insurance claim denials have been reversed before causing lasting financial harm to those homeowners?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had escalated the alteration request internally to XYZ Engineering's senior leadership or legal counsel before Supervisor B submitted the falsified reports to the insurance company — could that internal escalation have prevented the fraudulent submission and preserved both the property owners' claims and Engineer A's professional standing?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If XYZ Engineering had employed a licensed professional engineer as Supervisor B's superior — rather than a non-engineer principal — would the chain of authority over Engineer A's sealed reports have been structured differently, and would that have prevented the unauthorized alteration from occurring in the first place?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer A had refused to continue employment at XYZ Engineering immediately upon discovering that his sealed reports had been altered and submitted without his authorization — would that disengagement have constituted a sufficient fulfillment of his non-association obligations, or would it still have left unmet duties to notify authorities and affected property owners?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.123865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Refuse Report Alterations
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Refusal may damage Engineer A's relationship with Supervisor B and XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Refusal may jeopardize Engineer A's employment
foreseen unintended effects: Supervisor B may proceed to alter and distribute the reports without Engineer A's consent
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to act in a manner that upholds the honor and dignity of the profession
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts that injure the public or the profession
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports and public statements
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect the public from fraudulent or dishonest engineering practice
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to refuse to alter engineering documents without factual or technical basis
guided by principle text: Engineers must not be directed by non-engineers to alter professional findings without technical justification
guided by principle text: Professional integrity and resistance to improper external pressure
guided by principle text: Public welfare as paramount over employer or client financial interests
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and objectivity as non-negotiable professional standards
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Protect the integrity of his professional findings and prevent the issuance of false or misleading engineering reports that could harm property owners and undermine public trust in the engineering profession
requires capability text: Courage to resist improper employer pressure
requires capability text: Knowledge of NSPE Code of Ethics obligations
requires capability text: Professional judgment to evaluate the technical validity of requested changes
temporal marker: Review phase, after Supervisor B reviews the signed and sealed reports
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: When Supervisor B requests changes to some reports to attribute damage to pre-existing conditions rather than hurricane causes, Engineer A refuses, citing the absence of any factual or technical basis for the requested changes.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Reports Apparently Altered by Supervisor
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Falsification_Prohibition_Constraint
activates constraint: Mandatory_Correction_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Protection_Override
activates constraint: Seal_Misuse_Prevention_Constraint
causes state change: Falsified reports bearing Engineer A's seal transmitted to insurance company; Engineer A's professional identity misappropriated; property owners' claims now evaluated on false technical grounds; Engineer A's ethical and legal obligations to seek correction are fully activated
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Document_Falsification
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Notify_Relevant_Authorities
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Protect_Public_From_Falsified_Reports
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Seek_Correction
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A refuses alterations; before property owners contact Engineer A
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: critical
comment: After Engineer A refuses to change the reports, Supervisor B transmits the reports to the insurance company, apparently after altering them to attribute damage to pre-existing conditions, without Engineer A's knowledge or consent. This event represents the central ethical violation of the case.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Reports Apparently Altered by Supervisor (Event 5) → Insurance Claims Denied Based on Altered Reports (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The insurance company denies property owners' claims, relying on the altered reports bearing Engineer A's seal, which now attribute damage to pre-existing conditions rather than the hurricane
cause: Reports Apparently Altered by Supervisor (Event 5)
counterfactual: Had the reports reflected Engineer A's original hurricane-causation findings, or had the insurer been alerted to tampering, the claims would likely have been approved or independently re-evaluated
effect: Insurance Claims Denied Based on Altered Reports (Event 6)
necessary factors: Absence of any counter-report or flag indicating the reports had been tampered with
necessary factors: Altered reports bearing Engineer A's professional seal lending false credibility
necessary factors: Insurance company's reliance on the engineering assessment as authoritative
necessary factors: Insurance policy terms excluding pre-existing condition damage
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Supervisor B (primary); XYZ Engineering (institutional)
sufficient factors: Altered reports + Engineer A's seal of apparent authenticity + insurer's standard reliance on sealed engineering assessments was sufficient to produce claim denials without further investigation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Reports Completed and Sealed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Professional_Accountability_Constraint
activates constraint: Report_Accuracy_Constraint
activates constraint: Seal_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: Reports are formally certified by Engineer A's seal; Engineer A bears professional and legal responsibility for report content; reports enter supervisory review phase
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Defend_Sealed_Content
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Prevent_Misuse_Of_Seal
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After property inspections are completed; before Supervisor B's review
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A completes property inspection reports concluding that most damage is hurricane-related and applies his professional seal, formally certifying the accuracy and professional basis of the findings. This outcome represents the culmination of Engineer A's legitimate professional work.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Require Immediate Report Correction
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Corrected reports could result in significant financial liability for the insurance company
foreseen unintended effects: May require Engineer A to report the falsification to the state engineering licensing board
foreseen unintended effects: May result in Engineer A's termination from XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Requiring correction may trigger legal action against XYZ Engineering, Supervisor B, and/or the insurance company
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to avoid deceptive acts that injure the public or the reputation of the profession
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to ensure that engineering documents bearing his seal accurately represent his professional findings
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to hold public safety and welfare paramount
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect the public from fraudulent and dishonest engineering practice
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to report violations of the Code of Ethics to appropriate authorities
guided by principle text: Engineers bear continuing responsibility for the use of their sealed documents
guided by principle text: Public welfare requires correction of falsified professional engineering reports
guided by principle text: The integrity of the professional engineering seal is a public trust that cannot be compromised
guided by principle text: Unauthorized modification of sealed engineering documents by any party is impermissible
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: obligatory (Board-mandated ethical duty)
intended outcome: Restore the accuracy and integrity of the engineering reports bearing his seal, prevent ongoing harm to property owners whose claims were denied based on falsified findings, and protect the public trust in the professional engineering process
requires capability text: Authority as the sealing professional engineer to demand correction of documents bearing his seal
requires capability text: Knowledge of remedial procedures including notification of licensing boards and relevant authorities
requires capability text: Professional standing to require that altered reports be withdrawn or corrected
temporal marker: Post-discovery, contingent on confirmation that no supplemental technical information justifies the alteration
temporal sequence: 13
violates obligation text: Failure to require correction would constitute implicit ratification of the falsification and violation of the obligation to protect the public
within competence: true
comment: If investigation confirms no factual or technical basis for the altered conclusions, Engineer A is obligated by the Board to require immediate correction of the misrepresented reports bearing his seal.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Residential Property Owners Report Alteration Victims
type: ReportAlterationVictimPropertyOwner
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Residential property owners (multiple)', 'harm': 'Insurance claims denied based on fraudulently altered engineering reports'}
caseinvolvement: Homeowners whose hurricane-damaged properties were inspected by Engineer A, whose legitimate claims were documented in Engineer A's original signed and sealed reports as hurricane-related, but whose insurance claims were denied after Supervisor B altered the reports to indicate pre-existing structural conditions, and who subsequently contacted Engineer A to report the denials
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'claims_denied_by', 'target': 'Property Insurance Company Insurance Causation Determination Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'inspected_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'notified', 'target': 'Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Report Alteration Victim Property Owner
sourcetext: Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes
textreferences: Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.300153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.126995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.127104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:39:34.122185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Responsible Charge Detailed Review Constraint — Chief Engineer BER 86-2
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Chief Engineer sealed plans prepared by both licensed and non-licensed engineers working under his general direction, without detailed review, due to the size of the organization and the large number of concurrent projects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Chief Engineer (BER Case 86-2)
constraintclass: Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Obligation
constraintstatement: The Chief Engineer was prohibited from affixing his seal to plans that he had not personally prepared or had not checked and reviewed in detail — regardless of his confidence in the abilities of those working under his general direction — because general direction and supervision without detailed review does not satisfy the responsible charge requirement for sealing engineering documents.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 86-2
sourcetext: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
temporalscope: Throughout the Chief Engineer's practice of sealing plans within the large engineering firm
textreferences: Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
textreferences: The Chief Engineer believed he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.294621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Sealed Document Modification Documentation Constraint — Engineer A BER 09-6
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The company required that a professional engineer manually initial the revision block of documents being revised to identify the responsible engineer; Engineer A made changes to Engineer B's documents without following this documentation requirement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 09-6)
constraintclass: Sealed Document Modification Documentation Obligation
constraintstatement: Even if Engineer A had obtained Engineer B's consent to modify the sealed design documents, Engineer A was required to identify and document all actual changes made to Engineer B's sealed documents — a requirement Engineer A failed to satisfy, compounding the ethical violation of making unauthorized modifications.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 09-6; company revision block documentation practice
sourcetext: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A made changes to Engineer B's sealed design documents
textreferences: It was the practice of the company to require that a professional engineer manually initial the revision block of the document being revised, identifying the responsible engineer.
textreferences: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.307289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Sealed Report Alteration Investigation and Correction Constraint — Engineer A Present Case
type: SealedReportAlterationDiscoveryInvestigationObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A discovered that Supervisor B had altered his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports to indicate pre-existing structural damage rather than storm-related damage, causing residential property owners' legitimate insurance claims to be denied
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A (present case)
constraintclass: Sealed Report Alteration Discovery Investigation Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon discovering that his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports had been altered to reverse his findings, Engineer A was constrained to take necessary steps to seek understanding of the apparent reversal — including investigating whether any new factual or technical information existed that would legitimately alter his findings — and was required to demand immediate correction if no such information existed and the modification constituted a misrepresentation of his professional conclusions.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 86-2; BER Case 09-6
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery that his sealed reports had been altered by Supervisor B
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.294902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Sealed Report Inviolability Constraint — Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessments
type: SealedReportIntegrityInviolabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed alteration of and/or unilaterally altered Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports to indicate pre-existing structural damage rather than storm-related damage, causing residential property owners' legitimate insurance claims to be denied
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Supervisor B and XYZ Engineering
constraintclass: Sealed Report Integrity Inviolability Constraint
constraintstatement: Supervisor B and XYZ Engineering were absolutely prohibited from modifying, reversing, or altering Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports — which found storm-related rather than pre-existing structural damage — because neither Supervisor B nor any other party at XYZ Engineering had drafted those reports or exercised responsible charge over their preparation, and any such modification thoroughly compromised and undermined the integrity and veracity of the signing and sealing process.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 86-2; BER Case 09-6; state engineering licensure law
sourcetext: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A affixed his seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports through all subsequent transmission and use of those reports
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions. Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.294328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Sealed Report Inviolability Constraint — Engineer A Modification of Engineer B Documents BER 09-6
type: SealedReportIntegrityInviolabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made minor changes to Engineer B's sealed design documents without consulting Engineer B, under management pressure to release all documents for construction, when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 09-6)
constraintclass: Sealed Report Integrity Inviolability Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from making changes — even minor ones — to design documents prepared, designed, and sealed by Engineer B without first conferring with and obtaining the approval of Engineer B, because Engineer A had not exercised responsible charge over Engineer B's work and it was not established that Engineer A possessed the competence to sign and seal Engineer B's work in the specific field involved.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 09-6
sourcetext: In deciding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without conferring and gaining the approval of Engineer B, the Board noted that, unlike the earlier cases, the case before the Board did not involve a situation in which an engineer was engaging in areas of professional practice that were alien to his experience.
temporalscope: During the project revision phase when management pressure prompted Engineer A to complete and release all design documents
textreferences: Engineer A clearly did not exercise responsible charge (direct control or personal supervision) over the work in question, work which was either prepared or supervised by Engineer B.
textreferences: In deciding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without conferring and gaining the approval of Engineer B, the Board noted that, unlike the earlier cases, the case before the Board did not involve a situation in which an engineer was engaging in areas of professional practice that were alien to his experience.
textreferences: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.294474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Seek Understanding of Alterations
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Action may further damage Engineer A's relationship with XYZ Engineering and Supervisor B
foreseen unintended effects: Investigation may confirm unauthorized alteration, requiring escalation to regulatory authorities
foreseen unintended effects: Investigation may expose XYZ Engineering and the insurance company to legal and regulatory liability
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to avoid permitting misuse of his professional seal and signature
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect the integrity of the professional engineering seal
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to report apparent violations of the Code of Ethics
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to take action when aware of engineering decisions adverse to public safety and welfare
guided by principle text: Engineers must not permit their professional seal to be used to misrepresent their findings
guided by principle text: Professional accountability extends beyond the moment of sealing to include protecting the integrity of sealed documents
guided by principle text: Public welfare requires that falsified engineering documents be corrected
guided by principle text: The signing and sealing process must be protected from unauthorized modification by any party
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: obligatory (Board-mandated ethical duty)
intended outcome: Determine whether his signed and sealed reports were in fact altered without his authorization, gather information about the nature and extent of the falsification, and establish the factual basis for requiring correction
requires capability text: Ability to compare original findings with altered reports
requires capability text: Knowledge of professional engineering ethical obligations regarding sealed documents
requires capability text: Understanding of reporting obligations to licensing boards and relevant authorities
temporal marker: Discovery phase, after property owners contact Engineer A to report claim denials based on altered reports
temporal sequence: 12
violates obligation text: Failure to act promptly would violate the obligation to protect the public from fraudulent engineering practice
violates obligation text: Inaction would implicitly ratify the apparent falsification of his sealed documents
within competence: true
comment: Upon learning from property owners that his sealed reports appear to have been altered to reverse his findings, Engineer A is obligated by the Board to take immediate steps to investigate the apparent falsification of his professional documents.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Sign and Seal Reports
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: His professional reputation and licensure become directly tied to the contents of the sealed documents
foreseen unintended effects: Sealing the reports creates a formal professional record that could be misused if altered by others
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to exercise responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision) over the work being sealed
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to formally certify the accuracy of professional work products
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to seal only documents prepared by him or under his responsible charge
guided by principle text: Integrity of the professional engineering seal as a certification of responsible charge
guided by principle text: Personal accountability for sealed engineering documents
guided by principle text: Transparency and veracity in professional certifications
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Formally certify the accuracy and professional integrity of the reports, signifying that the documents reflect his direct professional judgment and responsible charge over their preparation
requires capability text: Professional engineering licensure
requires capability text: Structural engineering expertise sufficient to certify the findings
requires capability text: Understanding of responsible charge requirements
temporal marker: After report preparation, before submission to Supervisor B for review
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A formally signs and seals the prepared inspection reports, certifying that the findings represent his professional judgment and were prepared under his responsible charge.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Signed_Sealed_Report_Integrity_Standard_Instance
type: SignedandSealedReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE BER
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Signed and Sealed Report Integrity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Signed and Sealed Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody
textreferences: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the unauthorized alteration of Engineer A's sealed report
usedincontext: Applied to establish that signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents were either drafted by or prepared under the responsible charge of the signing engineer, and that any subsequent unauthorized modification thoroughly compromises the integrity of that process
version: N/A — professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.301534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Signed and Sealed Report Integrity Standard - Engineering Licensure Law Provisions
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State legislature / licensing board
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensure Statutes Governing Signed and Sealed Documents
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.182562+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Legal Resource
sourcetext: He then signs and seals the reports
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
usedby: Engineer A and XYZ Engineering in understanding the legal implications of the report alteration
usedincontext: Establishes the legal significance of an engineer's signature and seal on professional documents, the prohibition on unauthorized alteration of sealed documents, and the legal consequences of submitting altered sealed documents to clients and third parties.
version: Applicable state law
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.286334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Stamped Document Ongoing Technical Accountability Constraint — Engineer A Altered Reports
type: StampedDocumentOngoingTechnicalAccountabilityNon-AbandonmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's sealed reports were altered by Supervisor B and transmitted to the insurance company, creating ongoing professional accountability for Engineer A to correct the falsification and notify affected parties
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Stamped Document Ongoing Technical Accountability Non-Abandonment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for the technical integrity of those documents — prohibiting Engineer A from abandoning or disavowing responsibility for the reports upon discovering their alteration, and requiring instead that he take affirmative corrective action to restore the integrity of the sealed documents and notify affected parties.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:17:53.698485+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 86-2; BER Case 09-6
sourcetext: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the moment Engineer A sealed the hurricane damage assessment reports
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.306908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B Non-Engineer Principal Authority Boundary Violation
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalEngineeringAuthorityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Principal Engineering Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Supervisor B lacked the capability to recognize the boundary of engineering authority held by non-engineer firm principals — specifically, that directing alterations to signed and sealed engineering reports and transmitting altered versions to clients constitutes unlicensed engineering practice that exceeds the authority of a non-licensed firm principal.
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed alterations to sealed reports and then transmitted altered versions to the insurance company client, demonstrating absence of this capability.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Direction to Engineer A to alter sealed report conclusions without factual or technical basis, and subsequent unauthorized alteration and transmission of sealed reports after Engineer A refused.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:45.608068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Supervisor B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B Non-Engineer Principal Boundary Violation
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalEngineeringAuthorityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Principal Engineering Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Supervisor B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize the boundary of engineering authority held by non-engineer principals — proceeding to alter Engineer A's signed and sealed reports and transmit them as if they represented Engineer A's professional findings, in violation of the prohibition on non-engineer control over sealed engineering conclusions.
casecontext: Present case: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, altered Engineer A's sealed hurricane damage assessment reports
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Directing Engineer A to alter sealed reports, and upon refusal, altering and transmitting the reports without authorization
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:18:10.263594+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B Non-Engineer Sealed Report Alteration Prohibition
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalSealedReportAlterationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, unilaterally altered Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports to change findings from hurricane-related to pre-existing structural condition without any factual or technical basis, after Engineer A refused to make the changes, and transmitted the falsified reports to the property insurance company client.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Supervisor B / XYZ Engineering
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Principal Sealed Report Alteration Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Supervisor B, as a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, was absolutely prohibited from altering Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports — changing findings from hurricane-related to pre-existing structural condition without any factual or technical basis — and from transmitting those altered reports to the property insurance company as if they represented Engineer A's actual professional findings.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e (non-aiding unlicensed practice); state engineering practice acts prohibiting unlicensed practice; NSPE Code Section III.2.b (non-falsification of qualifications and findings)
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: At the time Supervisor B reviewed and altered Engineer A's sealed reports and transmitted them to the client
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.303976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B requesting changes before Engineer A refusing to make changes
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: asks Engineer A to make changes...Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
from entity text: Supervisor B requesting changes
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A refusing to make changes
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A refusing to make changes
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B reviewing the reports before Supervisor B requesting changes
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Supervisor B...reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports
from entity text: Supervisor B reviewing the reports
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Supervisor B requesting changes
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Supervisor B requesting changes
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B sending reports to insurance company before property owners' claims being denied
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client...their property insurance damage claims were denied
from entity text: Supervisor B sending reports to insurance company
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: property owners' claims being denied
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: property owners claims being denied
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor Requests Report Changes
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Professional_Independence_Constraint
activates constraint: Refuse_Improper_Direction_Constraint
activates constraint: Report_Accuracy_Constraint
activates constraint: Seal_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: Professional conflict between Engineer A and Supervisor B activated; Engineer A's ethical obligations to resist improper direction are triggered; integrity of sealed reports placed at risk
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Document_Refusal
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Evaluate_Requested_Changes
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Refuse_Unsupported_Alterations
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After reports are signed and sealed by Engineer A; before Engineer A's refusal
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: Supervisor B reviews Engineer A's sealed reports and requests that the findings be changed to attribute damage to pre-existing conditions rather than the hurricane, without providing factual or technical justification for the requested changes. This outcome reveals a conflict between supervisory authority and professional integrity.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor Requests Report Changes (Event 4) → Reports Apparently Altered by Supervisor (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Supervisor B reviews Engineer A's sealed reports and requests that the findings be changed to attribute damage to pre-existing conditions; after Engineer A refuses, Supervisor B transmits the reports to the insurance company in apparently altered form
cause: Supervisor Requests Report Changes (Event 4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A retained sole custody of the sealed reports or had an independent transmission protocol existed, Supervisor B could not have altered and forwarded them unilaterally
effect: Reports Apparently Altered by Supervisor (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer A's refusal to alter reports himself, leaving Supervisor B as sole actor
necessary factors: Financial or contractual incentive to favor insurer's preferred outcome
necessary factors: Supervisor B's access to the sealed reports prior to transmission
necessary factors: Supervisor B's authority over report transmission to the insurance company
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Supervisor B
sufficient factors: Combination of Supervisor B's access + motive to alter + Engineer A's refusal + transmission authority was sufficient to produce altered reports reaching the insurer
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

XYZ Engineering Contracted for Assessments
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Objectivity_And_Impartiality_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Competence_Required
activates constraint: Seal_Responsibility_Constraint
causes state change: Formal professional engagement established; Engineer A assigned to conduct inspections; supervisory chain involving Supervisor B activated
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Inspect_Accurately
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Obligation_To_Report_Honestly
creates obligation: XYZ_Obligation_To_Deliver_Competent_Assessment
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Shortly after hurricane damage occurs; before property inspections begin
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: medium
comment: The insurance company hires XYZ Engineering to conduct property damage assessments, establishing the professional and contractual context within which Engineer A will operate. This outcome creates the formal engineer-client relationship.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.298874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

XYZ Engineering Contracted for Assessments (Event 2) → Supervisor Requests Report Changes (Event 4) → Reports Apparently Altered by Supervisor (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The insurance company hires XYZ Engineering to conduct property damage assessments, establishing the contractual and financial relationship that creates Supervisor B's incentive to alter findings in favor of the insurer's preferred outcome of attributing damage to pre-existing conditions
cause: XYZ Engineering Contracted for Assessments (Event 2)
counterfactual: Had the assessments been commissioned by a neutral third party or had independent professional oversight been required, the financial incentive structure enabling Supervisor B's misconduct would have been substantially reduced
effect: Supervisor Requests Report Changes (Event 4) → Reports Apparently Altered by Supervisor (Event 5)
necessary factors: Absence of conflict-of-interest safeguards or independent oversight of assessment conclusions
necessary factors: Contractual relationship between XYZ Engineering and the insurance company creating financial dependency
necessary factors: Insurance company's implicit or explicit preference for findings minimizing hurricane-related payouts
necessary factors: Supervisor B's authority within XYZ Engineering to review and transmit reports
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Insurance Company (structural/institutional); XYZ Engineering (organizational); Supervisor B (individual)
sufficient factors: Financial dependency of XYZ Engineering on insurer contract + Supervisor B's authority + lack of independent oversight was sufficient to create conditions enabling fraudulent alteration
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

XYZ Engineering Non-Engineer Report Control Prohibition Constraint
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalSealedReportAlterationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed Engineer A to alter sealed reports, and when Engineer A refused, unilaterally altered and transmitted the falsified reports to the property insurance company client — exercising engineering judgment over sealed professional documents without licensure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: XYZ Engineering / Supervisor B
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Principal Sealed Report Alteration Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: XYZ Engineering, through its non-engineer principal Supervisor B, was absolutely prohibited from exercising operational control over Engineer A's signed and sealed structural assessment reports — including directing alterations to findings, unilaterally modifying sealed documents, and transmitting altered reports to the client as if they represented Engineer A's actual professional findings — establishing that non-engineer firm principals may not exercise engineering judgment over sealed professional documents regardless of their ownership or supervisory authority within the firm.
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:12:41.147098+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; state engineering practice acts; NSPE Code Section III.2.b; professional norms establishing that sealed engineering documents may only be modified by the sealing engineer or another licensed engineer with appropriate authority
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: At the time Supervisor B directed alterations and subsequently transmitted the falsified reports to the client
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.305005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

apparent alteration of reports during period between Engineer A's refusal and report submission to insurance company
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client...the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
from entity text: apparent alteration of reports
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: period between Engineer A's refusal and report submission to insurance company
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: period between Engineer A s refusal and report sub
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

change in project scope (BER 09-6) before Engineer A making unauthorized changes to Engineer B's documents (BER 09-6)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A change in project scope required revision to a subset of the design documents...Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B
from entity text: change in project scope (BER 09-6)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A making unauthorized changes to Engineer B's documents (BER 09-6)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A making unauthorized changes to Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037957+00:00
value: The Board concluded that organizational size and confidence in subordinates does not excuse the Chief Engineer from the responsible charge requirement — the seal's integrity is non-negotiable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037214+00:00
value: The Board concluded that organizational size and confidence in subordinates does not excuse the Chief Engineer from the responsible charge requirement — the seal's integrity is non-negotiable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.035801+00:00
value: The Board found that management pressure and time constraints do not justify unauthorized modification of another engineer's sealed documents, even when the modifying engineer is technically competent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037871+00:00
value: The Board found that management pressure and time constraints do not justify unauthorized modification of another engineer's sealed documents, even when the modifying engineer is technically competent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037081+00:00
value: The Board found that management pressure and time constraints do not justify unauthorized modification of another engineer's sealed documents, even when the modifying engineer is technically competent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039482+00:00
value: The Board found that management pressure and time constraints do not justify unauthorized modification of another engineer's sealed documents, even when the modifying engineer is technically competent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037777+00:00
value: The Board found that management pressure and time constraints do not justify unauthorized modification of another engineer's sealed documents, even when the modifying engineer is technically competent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039008+00:00
value: The Board found that management pressure and time constraints do not justify unauthorized modification of another engineer's sealed documents, even when the modifying engineer is technically competent

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.77
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.035942+00:00
value: Professional accountability to the public and to the integrity of sealed documents overrides any residual loyalty to the employer who facilitated the unauthorized alteration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038745+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation to property owners overrides any employer or client interest in claim denial; Engineer A correctly refused to alter findings, but the principle also requires affirmative action after discovering the unauthorized alteration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.034838+00:00
value: Objectivity is a non-negotiable professional obligation; the insurance company's financial interest in minimizing claims does not justify directing the engineer to alter objective findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.76
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039666+00:00
value: The engineer's public welfare obligation and professional integrity duty to third-party claimants override the insurance company client's interest in minimizing claim payouts through altered findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036385+00:00
value: Objectivity is non-negotiable in forensic engineering assessments; client or employer preference for a particular outcome does not constitute a technical basis for altering findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038386+00:00
value: The obligation to notify and assist identifiable third parties harmed by unauthorized use of the engineer's sealed credentials overrides employer and client loyalty when the harm results from fraud

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039296+00:00
value: The obligation to disassociate from fraudulent enterprise overrides employer loyalty; Engineer A must either compel correction of the firm's conduct or withdraw from the association

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039419+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation to property owners overrides any employer or client interest in claim denial; Engineer A correctly refused to alter findings, but the principle also requires affirmative action after discovering the unauthorized alteration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037510+00:00
value: The obligation to disassociate from fraudulent enterprise overrides employer loyalty; Engineer A must either compel correction of the firm's conduct or withdraw from the association

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.035329+00:00
value: The obligation to disassociate from fraudulent enterprise overrides employer loyalty; Engineer A must either compel correction of the firm's conduct or withdraw from the association

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039356+00:00
value: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public welfare obligation to harmed third parties override employer loyalty and client confidentiality when the alteration constitutes a fraud on property owners

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036604+00:00
value: The professional seal's integrity and the engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents override employer loyalty and employment security concerns when the pressure is to misrepresent professional findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038938+00:00
value: The prohibition on non-engineer alteration of sealed documents is absolute; no commercial or business interest justifies the alteration of sealed engineering findings without technical basis

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039234+00:00
value: Objectivity is a non-negotiable professional obligation; the insurance company's financial interest in minimizing claims does not justify directing the engineer to alter objective findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037387+00:00
value: Employer authority and client service obligations do not extend to directing the alteration of sealed professional findings without factual or technical basis; the seal's integrity is not subject to managerial override

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038166+00:00
value: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public protection rationale of the seal override employer loyalty and client direction when alterations misrepresent professional findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.035498+00:00
value: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public welfare obligation to harmed third parties override employer loyalty and client confidentiality when the alteration constitutes a fraud on property owners

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.77
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039542+00:00
value: Professional accountability to the public and to the integrity of sealed documents overrides any residual loyalty to the employer who facilitated the unauthorized alteration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039603+00:00
value: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public protection rationale of the seal override employer loyalty and client direction when alterations misrepresent professional findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.037673+00:00
value: Professional accountability to the public and to the integrity of sealed documents overrides any residual loyalty to the employer who facilitated the unauthorized alteration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038582+00:00
value: Honesty and professional integrity obligations are non-negotiable; client or employer interests in a particular outcome do not justify misrepresentation of professional findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.035659+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation to property owners overrides any employer or client interest in claim denial; Engineer A correctly refused to alter findings, but the principle also requires affirmative action after discovering the unauthorized alteration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039089+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation to property owners overrides any employer or client interest in claim denial; Engineer A correctly refused to alter findings, but the principle also requires affirmative action after discovering the unauthorized alteration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036732+00:00
value: Public welfare and professional integrity obligations override the insurance company's interest in minimizing claim payouts through altered engineering findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036496+00:00
value: The engineer's obligation to maintain the integrity of sealed documents overrides the employer's direction when that direction lacks factual or technical basis

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038846+00:00
value: The engineer's obligation to maintain the integrity of sealed documents overrides the employer's direction when that direction lacks factual or technical basis

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036103+00:00
value: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public protection rationale of the seal override employer loyalty and client direction when alterations misrepresent professional findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038248+00:00
value: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public welfare obligation to harmed third parties override employer loyalty and client confidentiality when the alteration constitutes a fraud on property owners

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036833+00:00
value: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents requires active corrective engagement regardless of organizational hierarchy or employer pressure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038079+00:00
value: Continuing accountability for sealed documents requires Engineer A to take affirmative steps to correct the altered record, even against employer interests

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.76
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036239+00:00
value: The engineer's public welfare obligation and professional integrity duty to third-party claimants override the insurance company client's interest in minimizing claim payouts through altered findings

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.036967+00:00
value: The obligation to protect property owners from fraudulent use of sealed engineering reports overrides the client relationship with the insurer, particularly when the insurer's direction lacks any factual or technical basis

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.039152+00:00
value: The prohibition on non-engineer management control of sealed engineering documents is absolute and cannot be overridden by client or business interests

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038479+00:00
value: The prohibition on non-engineer management control of sealed engineering documents is absolute and cannot be overridden by client or business interests

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:06:03.038656+00:00
value: The obligation to disassociate from fraudulent enterprise overrides employer loyalty; Engineer A must either compel correction of the firm's conduct or withdraw from the association

hurricane occurrence before insurance company hiring XYZ Engineering
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane
from entity text: hurricane occurrence
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: insurance company hiring XYZ Engineering
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: insurance company hiring XYZ Engineering
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

insurance company hiring XYZ Engineering before Engineer A's property inspections
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments...Engineer A visits the residential properties
from entity text: insurance company hiring XYZ Engineering
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's property inspections
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s property inspections
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

property owners' claims being denied before Engineer A hearing from property owners
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners...that their property insurance damage claims were denied
from entity text: property owners' claims being denied
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A hearing from property owners
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A hearing from property owners
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.309563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Chief Engineer's practice of sealing plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers under general direction — without detailed review — was found unethical because the seal falsely certified responsible charge that was not actually exercised.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports to reverse findings of major structural damage — without factual or technical basis — constitutes a misrepresentation of Engineer A's professional conclusions and violates the honesty obligation.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's refusal to alter his hurricane damage assessment findings without factual or technical basis demonstrates the principle of objectivity — his findings reflected independent technical assessment of the damage, and he refused to substitute commercially motivated conclusions for his professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's original findings of major structural damage resulting from the hurricane represent an objective professional assessment; the direction to alter those findings to attribute damage to pre-existing conditions rather than the hurricane lacked factual or technical basis.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The public welfare obligation requires Engineer A to ensure that his professional findings accurately represent the structural condition of hurricane-damaged properties, because property owners and the public rely on engineering assessments for safety and insurance purposes.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the public welfare — specifically the welfare of residential property owners dependent on accurate engineering assessments for legitimate insurance claims — is the foundational principle violated when his sealed reports were altered.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for those documents' technical integrity — an accountability that persists after Supervisor B took and altered those reports.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning that residential property owners' legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports, Engineer A bears an obligation to directly notify those property owners of the unauthorized alteration.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's hurricane damage assessments were used by the insurance company to deny legitimate claims of residential property owners — third parties who relied on the accuracy of Engineer A's sealed reports and who were harmed when those reports were altered.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The residential property owners whose hurricane damage claims were documented in Engineer A's original sealed reports are third-party beneficiaries of Engineer A's professional obligations; the alteration of those reports to deny legitimate claims violated Engineer A's duty to protect those third parties.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A correctly refused to revise sealed reports based solely on the direction of Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, who provided no factual or technical basis for the requested changes — demonstrating that the seal represents the engineer's own professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports were altered by Supervisor B without factual or technical basis, reversing Engineer A's findings of major structural damage; Engineer A bears an obligation to investigate, demand correction, and notify affected parties.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning from property owners that his sealed reports had been altered to deny legitimate hurricane damage claims, Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation to take corrective action — including notifying the insurance company, the property owners, and appropriate professional bodies.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning that his sealed reports were altered and used to deny legitimate insurance claims, Engineer A bears professional accountability obligations to acknowledge the situation, take corrective action, and report the unauthorized alteration to appropriate bodies.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's continued association with XYZ Engineering — a firm whose principal has altered sealed engineering reports without technical basis to serve an insurance company's commercial interests — triggers the obligation to disassociate from a fraudulent enterprise.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to resist Supervisor B's direction to alter his sealed hurricane damage assessment findings — even under organizational pressure and potential employment consequences — reflects the principle that the professional seal represents the engineer's own judgment and cannot be subordinated to unlicensed direction.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional accountability for his signed and sealed reports requires him to take affirmative steps to investigate the alteration of his findings and demand correction, rather than passively accepting the unauthorized modification.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed Engineer A to alter the conclusions of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis, reversing findings of major structural damage.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, altered Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis — substituting a commercial determination (damage is pre-existing, not hurricane-caused) for Engineer A's professional technical findings.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, exercised operational control over sealed engineering reports by taking them after Engineer A's refusal and sending altered versions to the client — substituting non-engineering commercial judgment for licensed engineering findings.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, transmitted to the insurance company reports that falsely represented the cause of hurricane damage as pre-existing structural conditions — a material misrepresentation of Engineer A's professional findings.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, transformed Engineer A's objective forensic assessments into advocacy documents for the insurance company's claim-denial position — violating the principle that forensic engineers must serve as objective experts, not advocates.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering's alteration and transmission of Engineer A's sealed reports — substituting commercially motivated conclusions for Engineer A's technical findings — is analogous to report suppression: the firm effectively suppressed Engineer A's actual findings by replacing them with altered conclusions.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's unauthorized modification of Engineer B's sealed design documents without consultation was found unethical because Engineer A had not exercised responsible charge over Engineer B's work and could not certify it through his own seal.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Chief Engineer's practice of sealing plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers under general direction — without detailed review — was found unethical because the seal falsely certified responsible charge that was not actually exercised.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's refusal to alter his hurricane damage assessment findings without factual or technical basis demonstrates the principle of objectivity — his findings reflected independent technical assessment of the damage.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports to reverse findings of major structural damage — without factual or technical basis — constitutes a misrepresentation of Engineer A's professional conclusions and violates the honesty obligation.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A correctly refused to revise sealed reports based solely on the direction of Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, who provided no factual or technical basis for the requested changes — demonstrating that the seal represents the engineer's own professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to resist Supervisor B's direction to alter his sealed hurricane damage assessment findings — even under organizational pressure and potential employment consequences — reflects the principle that the professional seal represents the engineer's own judgment.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A correctly refused to revise sealed reports based solely on the direction of Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, who provided no factual or technical basis for the requested changes — demonstrating that the seal represents the engineer's own professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for those documents' technical integrity — an accountability that persists after Supervisor B took and altered those reports.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports were altered by Supervisor B without factual or technical basis, reversing Engineer A's findings of major structural damage; Engineer A bears an obligation to investigate, demand correction, and notify affected parties.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning from property owners that his sealed reports had been altered to deny legitimate hurricane damage claims, Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation to take corrective action — including notifying the insurance company, the property owners, and appropriate professional bodies.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning that his sealed reports were altered and used to deny legitimate insurance claims, Engineer A bears professional accountability obligations to acknowledge the situation, take corrective action, and report the unauthorized alteration to appropriate bodies.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, transformed Engineer A's objective forensic assessments into advocacy documents for the insurance company's claim-denial position — violating the principle that forensic engineers must serve as objective experts, not advocates.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's original findings of major structural damage resulting from the hurricane represent an objective professional assessment; the direction to alter those findings to attribute damage to pre-existing conditions rather than the hurricane lacked factual or technical basis.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's hurricane damage assessments were used by the insurance company to deny legitimate claims of residential property owners — third parties who relied on the accuracy of Engineer A's sealed reports and who were harmed when those reports were altered.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The residential property owners whose hurricane damage claims were documented in Engineer A's original sealed reports are third-party beneficiaries of Engineer A's professional obligations; the alteration of those reports to deny legitimate claims violated Engineer A's duty to protect those third parties.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning that residential property owners' legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports, Engineer A bears an obligation to directly notify those property owners of the unauthorized alteration.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning that residential property owners' legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports, Engineer A bears an obligation to directly notify those property owners of the unauthorized alteration.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's unauthorized modification of Engineer B's sealed design documents without consultation was found unethical because Engineer A had not exercised responsible charge over Engineer B's work and could not certify it through his own seal.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The public welfare obligation requires Engineer A to ensure that his professional findings accurately represent the structural condition of hurricane-damaged properties, because property owners and the public rely on engineering assessments for safety and insurance purposes.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the public welfare — specifically the welfare of residential property owners dependent on accurate engineering assessments for legitimate insurance claims — is the foundational principle violated when his sealed reports were altered.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's continued association with XYZ Engineering — a firm whose principal has altered sealed engineering reports without technical basis to serve an insurance company's commercial interests — triggers the obligation to disassociate from a fraudulent enterprise.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's continued association with XYZ Engineering — a firm whose principal has altered sealed engineering reports without technical basis to serve an insurance company's commercial interests — triggers the obligation to disassociate from a fraudulent enterprise.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's continued association with XYZ Engineering — a firm whose principal has altered sealed engineering reports without technical basis to serve an insurance company's commercial interests — triggers the obligation to disassociate from a fraudulent enterprise.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning that his sealed reports were altered and used to deny legitimate insurance claims, Engineer A bears professional accountability obligations to acknowledge the situation, take corrective action, and report the unauthorized alteration to appropriate bodies.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional accountability for his signed and sealed reports requires him to take affirmative steps to investigate the alteration of his findings and demand correction, rather than passively accepting the unauthorized modification.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed Engineer A to alter the conclusions of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, exercised operational control over sealed engineering reports by taking them after Engineer A's refusal and sending altered versions to the client — substituting non-engineering commercial judgment for licensed engineering findings.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, exercised operational control over sealed engineering reports by taking them after Engineer A's refusal and sending altered versions to the client — substituting non-engineering commercial judgment for licensed engineering findings.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's unauthorized modification of Engineer B's sealed design documents without consultation was found unethical because Engineer A had not exercised responsible charge over Engineer B's work and could not certify it through his own seal.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, altered Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis — substituting a commercial determination (damage is pre-existing, not hurricane-caused) for Engineer A's professional technical findings.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, transmitted to the insurance company reports that falsely represented the cause of hurricane damage as pre-existing structural conditions — a material misrepresentation of Engineer A's professional findings.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, altered Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for those documents' technical integrity — an accountability that persists after Supervisor B took and altered those reports.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A correctly refused to revise sealed reports based solely on the direction of Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, who provided no factual or technical basis for the requested changes — demonstrating that the seal represents the engineer's own professional judgment.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports were altered by Supervisor B without factual or technical basis, reversing Engineer A's findings of major structural damage; Engineer A bears an obligation to investigate, demand correction, and notify affected parties.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional accountability for his signed and sealed reports requires him to take affirmative steps to investigate the alteration of his findings and demand correction, rather than passively accepting the unauthorized modification.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's unauthorized modification of Engineer B's sealed design documents without consultation was found unethical because Engineer A had not exercised responsible charge over Engineer B's work and could not certify it through his own seal.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The Chief Engineer was obligated to refrain from sealing plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers working under his general direction unless he had personally prepared those plans or had checked and reviewed them in detail

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to prepare objective, complete, and technically honest hurricane damage assessment reports reflecting his actual professional findings — which he did, finding the majority of damage to be hurricane-related — and to resist any direction to alter those findings without factual or technical basis.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse Supervisor B's direction to alter the sealed hurricane damage assessment reports to indicate pre-existing structural conditions when no factual or technical basis existed for such a change, and did so correctly.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to revise his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports based solely on the direction of Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, who provided no factual or technical basis for the requested changes.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for the technical integrity of those reports, obligating him to take corrective action upon learning that those reports had been altered.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to challenge Supervisor B's direction to alter sealed engineering reports and to refuse compliance, recognizing that Supervisor B — a non-licensed non-engineer — lacked the authority, qualifications, and legal standing to direct alterations to sealed engineering documents.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration and transmission of sealed engineering reports — acts constituting the unlicensed practice of engineering — to the state engineering licensure board and appropriate professional bodies.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Upon learning that his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports had been altered by Supervisor B without factual or technical basis and used to deny legitimate insurance claims, Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative corrective action.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to perform the hurricane damage forensic assessments with honesty and integrity, rendering objective technical findings based on his professional inspection rather than findings favorable to the insurance company client.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A bore an obligation to protect the interests of the residential property owners — third-party claimants whose legitimate insurance claims depended on the accuracy of his forensic assessments — by ensuring that his original findings were accurately represented.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the unauthorized alteration of his sealed reports — and the resulting wrongful denial of legitimate hurricane damage claims — beyond the client relationship to appropriate regulatory, professional, and legal authorities.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disengage from professional association with XYZ Engineering upon discovering that Supervisor B had altered his sealed reports without factual or technical basis and transmitted them to the insurance company in a manner that constituted a fraudulent enterprise.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of sealed engineering reports and XYZ Engineering's transmission of those altered reports to the appropriate professional bodies and public authorities.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to identify and document all actual changes he made to Engineer B's sealed design documents, so that Engineer B and all parties relying on the documents could determine precisely what was changed, by whom, and when.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings in the sealed hurricane damage assessment reports, and if no other information is available that would alter his findings, to demand correction and notify affected parties.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to directly notify the residential property owners whose insurance claims were denied based on the altered versions of his sealed reports, disclosing his original findings, the unauthorized nature of the alterations, and the correct causation determination.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to directly notify the residential property owners whose legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports, informing them of the alteration, his original findings of major structural damage, and the unauthorized nature of the modifications.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A bears continuing professional accountability for the technical integrity of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports, including the obligation to ensure that those reports accurately represent his professional findings.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making any changes — even minor ones — to design documents prepared, designed, and sealed by Engineer B without first conferring with and obtaining the approval of Engineer B, regardless of time pressure.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refuse Supervisor B's direction to alter the conclusions of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis, recognizing that Supervisor B's status as a non-licensed, non-engineer principal did not confer authority to direct alterations to sealed engineering documents.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to disengage from professional association with XYZ Engineering upon discovering that Supervisor B has altered his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis and transmitted them to the insurance company.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to refrain from permitting the use of his name or continuing professional association with XYZ Engineering, a firm whose non-engineer principal has altered Engineer A's signed and sealed professional reports without factual or technical basis.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B, as a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, was prohibited from exercising operational control over Engineer A's signed and sealed engineering reports — including directing alterations to findings and transmitting altered reports to clients.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Supervisor B was obligated to refrain from altering Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports — including reversing findings of major structural damage to minor damage — without factual or technical basis, and to refrain from transmitting altered reports to the insurance company client.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering and Supervisor B were obligated to ensure that Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports were modified only by Engineer A or by an engineer exercising responsible charge over the modification.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to resist management pressure to complete and release design documents in a manner that required modifying Engineer B's sealed work without Engineer B's knowledge and consent, recognizing that time pressure and management direction do not override sealed document integrity obligations.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering and Supervisor B were obligated to ensure that Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports were modified only by Engineer A or by an engineer exercising responsible charge over the modification, and to refrain from transmitting altered reports to clients.

BER_Case_09-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 09-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:22.441407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently, in BER Case 09-6, two professional engineers with similar backgrounds and expertise in electrical engineering were assigned to the same project
textreferences: In deciding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without conferring and gaining the approval of Engineer B
textreferences: More recently, in BER Case 09-6, two professional engineers with similar backgrounds and expertise in electrical engineering were assigned to the same project
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about the present case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that it is unethical for one engineer to make changes to design documents prepared and sealed by another engineer without conferring and gaining that engineer's approval, even under time pressure and even when technically competent to do so
version: 2009
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.301371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

XYZ Engineering Firm Employer
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Delegation Unauthorized Party Obligation
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Engineering consulting firm', 'client': 'Property insurance company'}
caseinvolvement: Engineering consulting firm that employed Engineer A, was retained by the property insurance company to conduct hurricane damage assessments, and whose non-engineer principal directed and effectuated unauthorized alteration of Engineer A's signed and sealed reports
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'principal', 'target': 'Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Property Insurance Company Client'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, is employed by engineering firm XYZ Engineering
textreferences: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, is employed by engineering firm XYZ Engineering
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Chief Engineer BER Case 86-2
type: ChiefEngineerSealingSupervisor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 86-2 Chief Engineer Sealing
has obligation: Chief Engineer BER 86-2 Responsible Charge Detailed Review Obligation Violation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Chief Engineer of large engineering firm', 'supervision_style': 'General direction and supervision without detailed review'}
caseinvolvement: Affixed seal to plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers under general direction without detailed review, found unethical by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Licensed Engineers Under General Direction'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Non-Licensed Graduate Engineers'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Chief Engineer Sealing Supervisor
sourcetext: the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail
textreferences: the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.288070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Chief Engineer Insufficient Responsible Charge — BER Case 86-2
type: InsufficientResponsibleChargeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing during the Chief Engineer's tenure of sealing plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers under general supervision
affectedparties: Chief Engineer
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Licensed engineers under supervision
affectedparties: Non-licensed graduate engineers
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs
stateclass: Insufficient Responsible Charge State
subject: Chief Engineer's practice of sealing plans without detailed review due to organizational scale
terminatedby: Board determination that the practice was unethical (resolved as a matter of ethical analysis)
textreferences: By general direction and supervision, the Chief Engineer meant that he was involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or verifying the project status as the design process progresses
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail
textreferences: The Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs
triggeringevent: Organizational growth making detailed review of all designs impossible for the Chief Engineer
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.303483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Client Report Suppression Prohibition Analogously Invoked Against XYZ Engineering
type: ClientReportSuppressionProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's original hurricane damage assessment findings
appliedto: Property insurance company
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Engineering's alteration and transmission of Engineer A's sealed reports — substituting commercially motivated conclusions for Engineer A's technical findings — is analogous to report suppression: the firm effectively suppressed Engineer A's genuine professional findings by replacing them with findings that served the insurance company's claim-denial interests, without any factual or technical basis
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: While the reports were transmitted rather than suppressed in the literal sense, the alteration of findings without technical basis achieves the same effect as suppression — Engineer A's genuine professional conclusions were effectively eliminated from the record and replaced with commercially motivated determinations
invokedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
invokedby: XYZ Engineering Firm Employer
principleclass: Client Report Suppression Prohibition
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on suppressing professional findings extends to their alteration without technical basis; the client's authority to direct the scope of an engineering engagement does not extend to directing the falsification of engineering findings
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.291800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Covert Alteration of Engineer A's Sealed Reports
type: SealedReportCovertAlterationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which the non-engineer principal altered Engineer A's reports through the present unresolved state requiring correction
affectedparties: Clients of the engineering firm
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Property owners relying on the reports
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings
stateclass: Sealed Report Covert Alteration State
subject: Engineer A's signed and sealed property inspection/assessment reports
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer A must require immediate correction and the falsified documents must be withdrawn or corrected
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand
triggeringevent: Non-engineer principal's covert reversal of Engineer A's professional findings after Engineer A refused to make the requested changes
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.302212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship with Insurance Company
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the firm's hiring by the insurance company through the submission of the structural assessment reports
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property insurance company
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: XYZ Engineering's (and by extension Engineer A's) professional engagement with the property insurance company
terminatedby: Completion of report submission to the insurance company (though obligations persist given the fraud)
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane
triggeringevent: Property insurance company hiring XYZ Engineering to inspect and assess hurricane-damaged residential properties
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.300640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest — Employer vs. Professional Integrity
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Supervisor B's request to alter reports through the present unresolved state
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property owners
affectedparties: Supervisor B
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's position within XYZ Engineering where employer directives conflict with professional engineering obligations
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer A must decide whether to report, withdraw, or take other action
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition
triggeringevent: Supervisor B directing Engineer A to alter sealed report conclusions to favor the insurance company's financial interest without technical basis
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.300812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Disassociation Decision
type: ProfessionalDisassociationDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery that the reports were altered and submitted through any resolution of the employment relationship
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Supervisor B
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
stateclass: Professional Disassociation Decision State
subject: Engineer A's decision about whether to continue employment at XYZ Engineering following Supervisor B's fraudulent alteration of sealed reports
terminatedby: Engineer A resigning, reporting to authorities, or taking other definitive action
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied
triggeringevent: Engineer A learning from property owners that his sealed reports were submitted in altered form, denying their legitimate hurricane damage claims
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.287425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety at Risk — Property Owners Harmed by Falsified Reports
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the denial of property owners' insurance claims through any correction of the falsified record
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property insurance company
affectedparties: Residential property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Residential property owners whose hurricane damage claims were denied based on falsified engineering reports, potentially leaving them without resources to repair structurally damaged homes
terminatedby: Correction of falsified reports, reinstatement of claims, or regulatory intervention
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
triggeringevent: Property owners notifying Engineer A that their claims were denied based on the altered version of his sealed reports
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.287273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Sealed Report Covert Alteration
type: SealedReportCovertAlterationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Supervisor B took the reports and submitted them to the insurance company through the present, as the falsified reports remain on record and property owners have been denied claims
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property insurance company
affectedparties: Residential property owners whose claims were denied
affectedparties: Supervisor B
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
stateclass: Sealed Report Covert Alteration State
subject: Engineer A's signed and sealed structural assessment reports
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — falsified reports remain in effect and property owners have been harmed
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
triggeringevent: Supervisor B taking Engineer A's sealed reports and submitting them to the insurance company with altered conclusions after Engineer A refused to make the changes
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.300334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Management Schedule Pressure on Engineer A — BER Case 09-6
type: ManagementPressureResponsibleChargeBypassState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From management's strong encouragement through Engineer A's decision to modify Engineer B's documents without consultation
affectedparties: Construction project
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Management
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released
stateclass: Management Pressure Responsible Charge Bypass State
subject: Management's encouragement of Engineer A to complete and release design documents under time pressure
terminatedby: Engineer A's completion of the modifications and release of documents (pressure resolved through ethically impermissible action)
textreferences: Engineer A did so when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available
textreferences: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released
textreferences: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
triggeringevent: Project schedule pressure and Engineer B's unavailability creating organizational pressure on Engineer A to release all documents
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.303316
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non-Engineer Principal Report Falsification Direction — Present Case
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalReportFalsificationDirectionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the principal's initial request to change findings through the covert alteration of the sealed reports
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm clients
affectedparties: Non-engineer principal
affectedparties: Property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions
stateclass: Non-Engineer Principal Report Falsification Direction State
subject: Non-engineer principal's direction to alter Engineer A's sealed inspection reports
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — the falsified documents remain in circulation
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions
triggeringevent: Principal's instruction to Engineer A to alter professional findings, followed by Engineer A's refusal and the principal's unilateral covert alteration
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.302935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B Non-Engineer Firm Principal Engineering Report Control Prohibition Violation
type: Non-EngineerFirmPrincipalEngineeringReportControlProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B directed Engineer A to alter sealed reports without technical basis; upon Engineer A's refusal, Supervisor B took the reports and transmitted them to the insurance company, effectively altering the sealed professional engineering findings.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Supervisor B / XYZ Engineering
obligationclass: Non-Engineer Firm Principal Engineering Report Control Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Supervisor B, as a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, was prohibited from exercising operational control over Engineer A's signed and sealed engineering reports — including directing alterations to findings and transmitting altered reports to the insurance company client — and XYZ Engineering was obligated to ensure that such control was not exercised by non-engineer principals.
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports.
temporalscope: Upon Supervisor B's direction to alter reports and subsequent unauthorized transmission of altered reports
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.296263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A BER 09-6 Sealed Document Modification Documentation Obligation Violation
type: SealedDocumentModificationDocumentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Modification of Engineer B's Sealed Documents — BER Case 09-6
casecontext: Engineer A made minor changes to Engineer B's sealed design documents under management pressure without consulting Engineer B, and took no steps to identify and document the actual changes made, in violation of the company's practice of requiring engineers to manually initial revision blocks.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 09-6 Engineer A Modification
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 09-6)
obligationclass: Sealed Document Modification Documentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to identify and document all actual changes he made to Engineer B's sealed design documents, so that Engineer B and all parties relying on the documents could determine precisely what was changed, by whom, and when.
sourcetext: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
temporalscope: At the time of and immediately following modifications to Engineer B's sealed design documents
textreferences: It was the practice of the company to require that a professional engineer manually initial the revision block of the document being revised, identifying the responsible engineer.
textreferences: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.289422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A BER Case 09-6 Document Modifier
type: UnauthorizedDocumentModifierEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 09-6 Engineer A Modification
has obligation: Engineer A BER 09-6 Peer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Obligation Violation
has obligation: Engineer A BER 09-6 Pressure Resistance Sealed Document Obligation Violation
has obligation: Engineer A BER 09-6 Sealed Document Modification Documentation Obligation Violation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Electrical engineering', 'competence_status': 'Technically competent but lacked responsible charge over modified work'}
caseinvolvement: Under management pressure and in the absence of Engineer B, made minor unauthorized changes to Engineer B's sealed design documents without consultation or documentation, found unethical by the NSPE Board.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Engineering Firm Management BER Case 09-6'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER Case 09-6'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Unauthorized Document Modifier Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A clearly did not exercise responsible charge (direct control or personal supervision) over the work in question
textreferences: Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.288211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Duties — Employer Loyalty vs. Public Welfare
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery that sealed reports were altered and submitted through any resolution
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Licensing board
affectedparties: Property owners
affectedparties: Supervisor B
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to employer XYZ Engineering and to the public welfare and professional integrity
terminatedby: Engineer A taking definitive action — reporting to authorities, notifying affected parties, or withdrawing from the firm
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition
triggeringevent: Property owners notifying Engineer A that their claims were denied based on the falsified version of his sealed reports
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.300970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Report Alteration Victim Third-Party Direct Notification
type: ForensicReportAlterationVictimThird-PartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Public Safety at Risk — Property Owners Harmed by Falsified Reports
casecontext: Residential property owners contacted Engineer A to report that their claims had been denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports; Engineer A's original findings documented hurricane-related damage.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Report Alteration Victim Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to directly notify the residential property owners whose insurance claims were denied based on the altered versions of his sealed reports, disclosing his original findings, the unauthorized nature of the alterations, and the basis for his original professional conclusions, so that the property owners could pursue correction of the record and reinstatement of their legitimate claims.
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
temporalscope: Upon being contacted by property owners and learning of the wrongful claim denials
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.295682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted
type: InternalEscalationExhaustedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's refusal to alter reports and Supervisor B's unilateral action through the present
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Supervisor B
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer
stateclass: Internal Escalation Exhausted State
subject: Engineer A's internal options within XYZ Engineering to address the falsification of his sealed reports
terminatedby: Engineer A pursuing external reporting to licensing board or other authorities
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer
triggeringevent: Supervisor B, as a principal of XYZ Engineering, overriding Engineer A's professional refusal and submitting altered reports — exhausting internal escalation given that the violating party is a firm principal
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.287587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Modification of Engineer B's Sealed Documents — BER Case 09-6
type: ResponsibleChargeBoundaryViolationbyPeerEngineerState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which Engineer A made changes to Engineer B's documents without consultation through the Board's determination that the action was unethical
affectedparties: Construction project stakeholders
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Management
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:07:01.578299+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B
stateclass: Responsible Charge Boundary Violation by Peer Engineer State
subject: Engineer A's unauthorized modification of design documents sealed by Engineer B
terminatedby: Board determination that Engineer A's actions were unethical (resolved as a matter of ethical analysis, though the underlying documents may have been released)
textreferences: Engineer A clearly did not exercise responsible charge (direct control or personal supervision) over the work in question
textreferences: Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable
textreferences: There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work
triggeringevent: Management pressure on Engineer A to release all design documents while Engineer B was unavailable
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.303103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Sealed Document Revision Non-Subordination to Supervisor B
type: SealedDocumentRevisionNon-SubordinationtoUnlicensedAuthorityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Non-Engineer Principal Report Falsification Direction — Present Case
casecontext: Supervisor B directed Engineer A to alter conclusions in sealed reports without factual or technical justification; Engineer A correctly refused.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Sealed Document Revision Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse to revise his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports based solely on the direction of Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, who provided no factual or technical basis for the requested changes.
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Supervisor B's direction to alter the sealed reports
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.294008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Stamped Document Continuing Accountability for Altered Reports
type: StampedDocumentContinuingTechnicalAccountabilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Covert Alteration of Engineer A's Sealed Reports
casecontext: Engineer A sealed reports finding hurricane-related damage; those reports were subsequently altered by Supervisor B to indicate pre-existing structural conditions and used to deny property owners' insurance claims.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Stamped Document Continuing Technical Accountability Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for the technical integrity of those reports, obligating him to take corrective action upon learning that the sealed reports had been altered and used to deny legitimate claims.
sourcetext: He then signs and seals the reports.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the moment of sealing through discovery of the unauthorized alteration and its consequences
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.295409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Challenge Against Supervisor B
type: UnlicensedPracticeChallengeandRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Supervisor B Non-Engineer Report Falsification Direction
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal, directed alterations to Engineer A's sealed reports and, upon Engineer A's refusal, took the reports and transmitted altered versions to the insurance company client.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition Invoked Against Supervisor B
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Unlicensed Practice Challenge and Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to challenge Supervisor B's direction to alter sealed engineering reports and to refuse compliance, recognizing that Supervisor B — a non-licensed non-engineer — lacked the authority, qualifications, and legal standing to direct changes to sealed engineering work product.
sourcetext: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
temporalscope: Upon Supervisor B's direction to alter sealed reports and upon learning of the unauthorized transmission
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.294142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting of Supervisor B to Licensing Board
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingtoProfessionalBodiesObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Unlicensed Practice by Supervisor B
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer, altered Engineer A's sealed reports and transmitted them to the insurance company, effectively substituting non-engineer commercial judgment for Engineer A's professional engineering findings.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting to Professional Bodies Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to report Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration and transmission of sealed engineering reports — acts constituting the unlicensed practice of engineering — to the state engineering licensure board and appropriate professional bodies.
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
temporalscope: Upon learning that Supervisor B had altered and transmitted the sealed reports and that property owners' claims had been denied based on the altered reports
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.295064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Violated by XYZ Engineering
type: ForensicExpertNon-AdvocateStatusinCivilLitigation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane damage assessment reports
appliedto: Property insurance company client relationship
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, transformed Engineer A's objective forensic assessments into advocacy documents for the insurance company's claim-denial position — violating the principle that forensic engineers are not advocates for the retaining party and must not selectively alter findings to serve the client's commercial interests
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The insurance forensic context, while not strictly litigation, involves the same non-advocate obligation: Engineer A's role was to provide objective technical findings about damage causation, not to advocate for the insurer's preferred outcome of claim denial
invokedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
invokedby: XYZ Engineering Firm Employer
principleclass: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
tensionresolution: The non-advocate status of forensic engineers is absolute; the insurer's commercial interest in claim denial does not authorize the transformation of objective findings into advocacy through unauthorized alteration
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.290858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by XYZ Engineering
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane damage assessment reports transmitted to insurance company
appliedto: Property insurance company client
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, transmitted to the insurance company reports that falsely represented the cause of hurricane damage as pre-existing structural conditions — a material misrepresentation of professional engineering findings that violated the principle of honesty in professional representations
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The transmission of altered reports bearing Engineer A's seal constitutes a false professional representation — the reports purport to reflect Engineer A's professional findings but in fact reflect Supervisor B's commercially motivated alterations without technical basis
invokedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
invokedby: XYZ Engineering Firm Employer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
tensionresolution: Honesty in professional representations is non-negotiable; no client or employer interest justifies transmitting falsified engineering findings under a licensed engineer's seal
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.290208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B Non-Engineer Report Falsification Direction
type: Non-EngineerPrincipalReportFalsificationDirectionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Supervisor B's initial request to alter reports through the submission of altered reports to the insurance company and the resulting denial of property owners' claims
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property insurance company
affectedparties: Residential property owners
affectedparties: Supervisor B
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
stateclass: Non-Engineer Principal Report Falsification Direction State
subject: Supervisor B's direction to Engineer A and subsequent unilateral action on sealed reports
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — the altered reports remain submitted and the conduct has not been reported or corrected
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
triggeringevent: Supervisor B requesting Engineer A alter report conclusions without technical basis, then taking and submitting the reports after Engineer A's refusal
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.300499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B XYZ Engineering Non-Engineer Report Alteration Prohibition Violation
type: Non-EngineerFirmPrincipalEngineeringReportControlProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-licensed, non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, reviewed Engineer A's sealed reports, directed Engineer A to alter conclusions without factual basis, and when Engineer A refused, altered the reports himself and transmitted them to the insurance company, causing legitimate property owner claims to be denied.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by XYZ Engineering
derived from principle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Supervisor B (Non-Engineer Principal, XYZ Engineering)
obligationclass: Non-Engineer Firm Principal Engineering Report Control Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Supervisor B was obligated to refrain from altering Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports — including reversing findings of major structural damage to minor damage — without factual or technical basis, and to refrain from transmitting those altered reports to the insurance company client.
sourcetext: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
temporalscope: At the time of reviewing and transmitting Engineer A's sealed reports
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.306195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice by Supervisor B
type: UnlicensedPracticebyThirdPartyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Supervisor B's review and alteration of the sealed reports through any regulatory action
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property insurance company
affectedparties: Property owners
affectedparties: Supervisor B
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:50.540035+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
stateclass: Unlicensed Practice by Third Party State
subject: Supervisor B's exercise of engineering judgment over Engineer A's sealed structural assessment reports without holding a professional engineering license
terminatedby: Reporting to licensing board, regulatory investigation, or cessation of the conduct
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
triggeringevent: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal, reviewing sealed engineering reports, directing changes to technical conclusions, and submitting altered reports to the client
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.287782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

XYZ Engineering Firm Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Obligation
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Professional Disassociation Decision
casecontext: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports, has engaged in fraudulent and dishonest enterprise by transmitting materially false engineering findings to the insurance company client, causing legitimate property owner claims to be denied. Continued association by Engineer A constitutes association with a fraudulent enterprise.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Professional Association Disengagement Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer, XYZ Engineering)
obligationclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to refrain from permitting the use of his name or continuing professional association with XYZ Engineering, a firm whose non-engineer principal has altered Engineer A's signed and sealed professional reports without factual or technical basis and transmitted those altered reports to clients in a manner that harms third-party property owners.
sourcetext: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
temporalscope: Upon discovery that XYZ Engineering has altered and transmitted Engineer A's sealed reports without authorization
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.305588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Chief Engineer BER 86-2 Responsible Charge Detailed Review Obligation Violation
type: ResponsibleChargeDetailedReviewBeforeSealingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Chief Engineer Insufficient Responsible Charge — BER Case 86-2
prevails over: Engineer A BER 09-6 Pressure Resistance Sealed Document Obligation Violation
casecontext: The Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm affixed his seal to plans prepared by licensed engineers and non-licensed graduate engineers working under his general direction, finding it impossible to give detailed review due to the size of the organization and number of projects. The Board concluded this was unethical.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 86-2 Chief Engineer Sealing
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Chief Engineer (BER Case 86-2, Large Engineering Firm)
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Obligation
obligationstatement: The Chief Engineer was obligated to refrain from sealing plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers working under his general direction unless he had personally prepared those plans or had checked and reviewed them in detail, and was not permitted to rely on general supervisory involvement and confidence in subordinates as a substitute for detailed review.
sourcetext: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
temporalscope: At the time of affixing professional seal to plans prepared by subordinates
textreferences: Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
textreferences: The Chief Engineer believed he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.306469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Case Sealed Report Alteration Investigation Obligation
type: SealedReportUnauthorizedAlterationCorrectionandNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Sealed Report Covert Alteration
casecontext: Engineer A prepared, signed, and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports finding major structural damage. Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, altered those reports without factual or technical basis, reversing Engineer A's findings, and transmitted the altered reports to the insurance company, resulting in denial of legitimate property owner claims.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Invoked for Engineer A Corrective Action Obligation
derived from principle: Sealed Report Integrity Invoked for Engineer A Present Case Hurricane Reports
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer, XYZ Engineering)
obligationclass: Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Correction and Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings in the sealed hurricane damage assessment reports, and if no other information is available that would alter his findings, to require immediate correction of any effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in his report.
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
temporalscope: Upon learning from property owners that his sealed reports had been altered and used to deny their legitimate claims
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.305896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Objective and Complete Reporting in Hurricane Damage Assessments
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Client Relationship with Insurance Company
casecontext: Engineer A prepared sealed reports finding hurricane-related damage; Supervisor B directed alterations without technical basis, which Engineer A correctly refused.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked Against Alteration of Damage Findings
derived from principle: Objectivity Principle Invoked by Engineer A in Refusing Alterations
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to prepare objective, complete, and technically honest hurricane damage assessment reports reflecting his actual professional findings — which he did, finding the majority of damage to be hurricane-related — and to resist any direction to alter those findings without factual or technical basis.
sourcetext: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
temporalscope: During preparation and sealing of the hurricane damage assessment reports
textreferences: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.295826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Refusal to Alter Sealed Reports Without Technical Basis
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientSafetyOverrideObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed Engineer A to change findings in sealed reports from hurricane-related damage to pre-existing structural conditions without any factual or technical basis.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority Invoked by Engineer A
derived from principle: Pressure Resistance Obligation Invoked for Engineer A Against Supervisor B Direction
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse Supervisor B's direction to alter the sealed hurricane damage assessment reports to indicate pre-existing structural conditions when no factual or technical basis existed for such a change, and did so correctly.
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Supervisor B's direction to alter the reports
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.293874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked Against Alteration of Damage Findings
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane damage assessment reports
appliedto: Insurance causation determinations
balancingwith: Client service obligations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The alteration of Engineer A's sealed reports to reverse findings of major structural damage — without factual or technical basis — constitutes a misrepresentation of Engineer A's professional conclusions and violates the honesty obligation that underlies the professional certification process
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations requires that sealed engineering documents accurately reflect the engineer's actual findings; alterations that reverse findings without basis are inherently dishonest representations
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
invokedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
tensionresolution: Honesty and professional integrity obligations are non-negotiable; client or employer interests in a particular outcome do not justify misrepresentation of professional findings
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.293425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition Invoked Against Supervisor B
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorReportAlterationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports
balancingwith: Client service obligations
balancingwith: Employer authority
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed Engineer A to alter the conclusions of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis, reversing findings of major structural damage to deny insurance claims
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A non-engineer supervisor lacks the professional qualifications and legal accountability that the engineer's seal represents; directing alteration of sealed findings without factual basis constitutes a fundamental violation of the professional certification process
invokedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
principleclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition
sourcetext: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
tensionresolution: Employer authority and client service obligations do not extend to directing the alteration of sealed professional findings without factual or technical basis; the seal's integrity is not subject to managerial override
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.292772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Invoked by Engineer A in Refusing Alterations
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Causation determinations in sealed reports
appliedto: Hurricane damage assessment findings
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's refusal to alter his hurricane damage assessment findings without factual or technical basis demonstrates the principle of objectivity — his findings reflected independent technical assessment of the damage, and he refused to substitute the insurer's commercially motivated characterization for his own objective professional judgment
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in forensic engineering requires that damage causation findings reflect the engineer's independent technical assessment of the evidence, not the client's preferred outcome — Engineer A correctly maintained objectivity by refusing to alter findings without technical justification
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
tensionresolution: Objectivity is non-negotiable in forensic engineering assessments; client or employer preference for a particular outcome does not constitute a technical basis for altering findings
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.290366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Pressure Resistance Obligation Invoked for Engineer A Against Supervisor B Direction
type: ResponsibleChargeIntegrityandSealAuthorityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Supervisor B's direction to alter sealed report findings
appliedto: XYZ Engineering Firm Employer organizational pressure
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Employment security
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to resist Supervisor B's direction to alter his sealed hurricane damage assessment findings — even under organizational pressure and potential employment consequences — reflects the principle that the professional seal's integrity cannot be subordinated to managerial authority
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's obligation to resist pressure that would compromise sealed document integrity applies with equal force whether the pressure comes from time constraints (BER 09-6) or from supervisory direction to alter findings (present case)
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Report Author
principleclass: Responsible Charge Integrity and Seal Authority Principle
sourcetext: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
tensionresolution: The professional seal's integrity and the engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents override employer loyalty and employment security concerns when the pressure is to misrepresent professional findings
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
textreferences: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.293582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Hurricane Damage Assessment Context
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane-damaged residential properties
appliedto: Residential Property Owners Report Alteration Victims
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The public welfare obligation requires Engineer A to ensure that his professional findings accurately represent the structural condition of hurricane-damaged properties, because property owners and the public rely on engineering assessments to receive appropriate compensation and to ensure safe occupancy decisions
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare in the forensic assessment context encompasses both the accuracy of findings that affect third-party financial interests and the safety implications of mischaracterizing structural damage
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer. Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client.
tensionresolution: Public welfare and professional integrity obligations override the insurance company's interest in minimizing claim payouts through altered engineering findings
textreferences: Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client.
textreferences: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.293084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Obligation Invoked in Hurricane Assessment
type: Third-PartyInsuranceClaimantProtectionObligationinForensicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Property insurance company client
appliedto: Residential property owners whose claims were denied
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's hurricane damage assessments were used by the insurance company to deny legitimate claims of residential property owners — third parties who relied on the accuracy of Engineer A's sealed reports and who were harmed when those reports were altered without technical basis — triggering Engineer A's obligation to protect these non-client third parties
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the insurance forensic context, residential property owners are foreseeable third-party beneficiaries of accurate engineering assessments; their financial welfare and housing security depend on the engineer's professional integrity in a way that creates obligations beyond the engineer-insurer client relationship
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Obligation in Forensic Engineering
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
tensionresolution: The obligation to protect property owners from fraudulent use of sealed engineering reports overrides the client relationship with the insurer, particularly when the insurer's direction lacks any factual or technical basis
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.290049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Delegation Unauthorized Party Obligation
type: ResponsibleChargeIntegrityNon-DelegationtoUnauthorizedPartyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Unlicensed Practice by Supervisor B
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, altered Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without authorization, reversing findings of major structural damage. This modification was made by a party who neither prepared the original documents nor exercised responsible charge over the modification.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: XYZ Engineering and Supervisor B
obligationclass: Responsible Charge Integrity Non-Delegation to Unauthorized Party Obligation
obligationstatement: XYZ Engineering and Supervisor B were obligated to ensure that Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports were modified only by Engineer A or by an engineer exercising responsible charge over the modification, and to refrain from permitting or directing modifications by Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal who did not prepare the original documents and did not exercise responsible charge over any modification.
sourcetext: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
temporalscope: At the time Supervisor B altered and transmitted Engineer A's sealed reports
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.305748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Case Third-Party Notification Obligation
type: ForensicReportAlterationVictimThird-PartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Integrity Stamped Document Accountability
casecontext: Property owners' legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied by the insurance company based on altered versions of Engineer A's sealed reports that reversed his findings of major structural damage. The property owners are the ultimate victims of the unauthorized alteration and have a direct interest in Engineer A's original professional conclusions.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer, XYZ Engineering)
obligationclass: Forensic Report Alteration Victim Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to directly notify the residential property owners whose legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports, informing them of the alteration, his original findings of major structural damage, and the basis for those findings, so that they can pursue correction of the record and available legal remedies.
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
temporalscope: Upon learning from property owners that his sealed reports had been altered and used to deny their claims
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer. Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.306331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked in Hurricane Damage Assessment Findings
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane damage causation determinations
appliedto: Property insurance claim assessments
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's original findings of major structural damage resulting from the hurricane represent an objective professional assessment; the direction to alter those findings to attribute damage to pre-existing conditions rather than the hurricane violates the objectivity principle by substituting the insurer's preferred outcome for the engineer's independent technical judgment
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in forensic engineering requires that causation findings reflect the engineer's independent technical assessment of the evidence, not the retaining party's financial interest in a particular outcome
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
tensionresolution: Objectivity is a non-negotiable professional obligation; the insurance company's financial interest in minimizing claims does not justify directing the engineer to alter objective findings
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client.
textreferences: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.293734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 86-2 Chief Engineer Sealing
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Plans sealed by Chief Engineer without detailed review in large engineering firm
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Organizational efficiency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Chief Engineer's practice of sealing plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers under general direction — without detailed review — was found unethical because the seal falsely certified responsible charge that was not actually exercised
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Responsible charge requires more than general supervisory involvement in concept and design requirements; it requires detailed review sufficient to personally vouch for the technical adequacy of the sealed documents
invokedby: Chief Engineer BER Case 86-2
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
tensionresolution: The Board concluded that organizational size and confidence in subordinates does not excuse the Chief Engineer from the responsible charge requirement — the seal's integrity is non-negotiable
textreferences: Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.292272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Invoked for Residential Property Owners
type: Third-PartyInsuranceClaimantProtectionObligationinForensicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane damage insurance claims
appliedto: Residential Property Owners Report Alteration Victims
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The residential property owners whose hurricane damage claims were documented in Engineer A's original sealed reports are third-party beneficiaries of Engineer A's professional obligations; the alteration of those reports to deny legitimate claims constitutes a violation of Engineer A's duty to those property owners
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineers retained by insurance companies to assess property damage bear professional obligations to the property owners whose claims depend on the accuracy of the findings, not merely to the insurance company client
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Obligation in Forensic Engineering
sourcetext: Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client.
tensionresolution: The engineer's public welfare obligation and professional integrity duty to third-party claimants override the insurance company client's interest in minimizing claim payouts through altered findings
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client.
textreferences: Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.292926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
type: Non-EngineerSupervisorReportAlterationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports
appliedto: XYZ Engineering firm
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer business interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, altered Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis — substituting a commercial determination (damage is pre-existing, not hurricane-related) for the licensed engineer's professional technical judgment — in direct violation of the principle prohibiting non-engineers from altering sealed engineering documents
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Supervisor B's alteration of sealed reports represents the paradigmatic violation of this principle: a non-engineer with a commercial interest in a particular outcome overriding a licensed engineer's technical findings without any factual or technical justification
invokedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
principleclass: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on non-engineer alteration of sealed documents is absolute; no commercial or business interest justifies the alteration of sealed engineering findings without technical basis
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.289898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked for Engineer A Corrective Action Obligation
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Altered hurricane damage assessment reports
appliedto: Supervisor B's direction to reverse findings
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Organizational hierarchy
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional accountability for his signed and sealed reports requires him to take affirmative steps to investigate the alteration of his findings and demand correction, rather than passively accepting the unauthorized modification
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability extends beyond the moment of sealing — the engineer remains accountable for the integrity of sealed documents and must take responsibility for correcting unauthorized alterations
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Report Author
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
tensionresolution: The engineer's continuing professional accountability for sealed documents requires active corrective engagement regardless of organizational hierarchy or employer pressure
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.293250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Sealed Report Integrity Preservation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Post-Alteration
type: SealedReportIntegrityPreservationandUnauthorizedAlterationResponseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Altered sealed hurricane damage assessment reports
appliedto: Residential property owners whose claims were denied
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon learning from property owners that his sealed reports had been altered to deny legitimate hurricane damage claims, Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation to take corrective action — including notifying the insurance company, the property owners, and the licensing board — because his seal creates a continuing professional accountability for the document's integrity
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The discovery that sealed reports were altered without technical basis and used to deny legitimate claims triggers an affirmative corrective obligation that goes beyond the initial refusal to make changes — Engineer A must now act to protect the integrity of his sealed work and the property owners who relied on it
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Sealed Report Integrity Preservation and Unauthorized Alteration Response Obligation
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
tensionresolution: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public welfare obligation to harmed third parties override employer loyalty and client confidentiality when the alteration constitutes a fraud on property owners
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.288982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A
type: StampedDocumentOngoingProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's affixing of his professional seal to the hurricane damage assessment reports created a continuing professional accountability for those documents' technical integrity — an accountability that persists after Supervisor B took and altered the reports, entitling and obligating Engineer A to defend the technical soundness of his original findings and challenge the unauthorized alterations
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The professional seal does not merely certify the document at the moment of sealing; it creates a continuing relationship between the engineer and the document's integrity, such that unauthorized alteration by a third party does not discharge the engineer's accountability but rather triggers an obligation to correct the record
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability
sourcetext: He then signs and seals the reports.
tensionresolution: Continuing accountability for sealed documents requires Engineer A to take affirmative steps to correct the altered record, even against employer interests
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.289122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Property insurance company
appliedto: Residential property owners whose claims were denied
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon learning that residential property owners' legitimate hurricane damage claims were denied based on altered versions of his sealed reports, Engineer A bears an obligation to directly notify those property owners of the unauthorized alteration and to take steps to correct the record, because the property owners are identifiable third parties directly exposed to financial harm from the fraudulent use of Engineer A's professional credentials
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The property owners who contacted Engineer A have already initiated contact; Engineer A's obligation is to respond affirmatively by confirming the alteration, assisting in correcting the record, and taking steps to restore the integrity of his professional findings for their benefit
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
tensionresolution: The obligation to notify and assist identifiable third parties harmed by unauthorized use of the engineer's sealed credentials overrides employer and client loyalty when the harm results from fraud
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.291962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A BER 09-6 Peer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Obligation Violation
type: PeerEngineerSealedDocumentModificationPriorConsentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 09-6 Pressure Resistance Sealed Document Obligation Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Modification of Engineer B's Sealed Documents — BER Case 09-6
prevails over: Engineer A BER 09-6 Pressure Resistance Sealed Document Obligation Violation
casecontext: Under management pressure to release design documents for construction, Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B, when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available. The Board found this unethical.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 09-6 Engineer A Modification
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 09-6)
obligationclass: Peer Engineer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making any changes — even minor ones — to design documents prepared, designed, and sealed by Engineer B without first conferring with and obtaining the approval of Engineer B, regardless of time pressure from management and regardless of Engineer A's technical competence to make the modifications.
sourcetext: Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable.
temporalscope: At the time of making modifications to Engineer B's sealed design documents
textreferences: Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable.
textreferences: In completing his work at the behest of management, Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B.
textreferences: In deciding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without conferring and gaining the approval of Engineer B...
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.289262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Duty to Report Supervisor B Misconduct to Professional Bodies
type: DutytoReport
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Association with XYZ Engineering Fraudulent Enterprise
defeasible under: Engineer A Competing Duties — Employer Loyalty vs. Public Welfare
casecontext: Supervisor B altered sealed reports without technical basis; the altered reports were used to deny legitimate insurance claims; no technical basis existed for the alterations.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A Post-Discovery
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Invoked for Engineer A Corrective Action Obligation
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Duty to Report
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to report Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of sealed engineering reports and XYZ Engineering's transmission of those altered reports to the appropriate professional bodies and public authorities, recognizing that the conduct constitutes both unlicensed engineering practice and fraudulent misrepresentation.
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
temporalscope: Upon learning of the unauthorized alterations and their consequences for property owners
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.296531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection in Hurricane Assessment
type: ForensicReportAlterationVictimThird-PartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Insurance Assessment
prevails over: Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Insurance Assessment
casecontext: Residential property owners were the ultimate beneficiaries of accurate hurricane damage assessments; their legitimate claims were denied based on unauthorized alterations to Engineer A's sealed reports.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Invoked for Residential Property Owners
derived from principle: Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Obligation Invoked in Hurricane Assessment
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Report Alteration Victim Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A bore an obligation to protect the interests of the residential property owners — third-party claimants whose legitimate insurance claims depended on the accuracy of his forensic assessments — by ensuring that his original findings were not suppressed or altered to their detriment, and by taking corrective action when he learned that altered reports had been used to deny their claims.
sourcetext: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane.
temporalscope: From the time of inspection through discovery of the unauthorized alterations and their consequences
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.296101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
type: Non-EngineerFirmManagementProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane damage assessment reports
appliedto: XYZ Engineering firm operations
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, exercised operational control over sealed engineering reports by taking them after Engineer A's refusal and sending altered versions to the client — substituting non-engineer commercial judgment for licensed engineering judgment in a manner that circumvents the public protection rationale of engineering licensure
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Supervisor B's action of taking sealed reports and transmitting altered versions to the client constitutes non-engineer management control that enables circumvention of licensed engineering oversight, violating the principle that non-engineers cannot substitute their judgment for that of the licensed engineer of record
invokedby: Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
principleclass: Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on non-engineer management control of sealed engineering documents is absolute and cannot be overridden by client or business interests
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.289739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Hurricane Case
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Hurricane damage assessment reports
appliedto: Residential property owners' insurance claims
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the public welfare — specifically the welfare of residential property owners dependent on accurate engineering assessments for legitimate insurance claims — is the foundational principle violated when Supervisor B altered Engineer A's sealed reports without technical basis
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare requires that engineering assessments of hurricane damage be accurate and unaltered, because property owners' financial recovery and housing security depend on the integrity of those assessments
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation to property owners overrides any employer or client interest in claim denial; Engineer A correctly refused to alter findings, but the principle also requires affirmative action after discovering the unauthorized alteration
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.288673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Report Author
type: HurricaneDamageAssessmentEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Pressure Resistance Obligation Invoked for Engineer A Against Supervisor B Direction
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Invoked for Engineer A Corrective Action Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Report Alteration Victim Third-Party Direct Notification
has obligation: Engineer A Hurricane Case Professional Association Disengagement Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Integrity Stamped Document Accountability
has obligation: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Hurricane Case Sealed Report Alteration Investigation Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Hurricane Case Third-Party Notification Obligation
has obligation: XYZ Engineering Firm Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Obligation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'document_type': 'Signed and sealed professional engineering report', 'status': 'Findings reversed without knowledge or consent'}
caseinvolvement: Prepared, signed, and sealed a professional engineering report whose findings were subsequently altered without authorization, bearing obligations to seek understanding of the reversal and require immediate correction to prevent misrepresentation of conclusions.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:06:35.385524+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_notify', 'target': 'Report Alteration Victim Property Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'victim_of_alteration', 'target': 'Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings
textreferences: Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report
textreferences: this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.288492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Safety Escalation After Report Alteration Discovery
type: PublicWelfareSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Hurricane Case Professional Association Disengagement Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted
prevails over: Engineer A Hurricane Case Professional Association Disengagement Obligation
casecontext: Engineer A learned that his sealed reports had been altered and used to deny legitimate claims; the insurance company client was the beneficiary of the fraudulent alteration, making internal escalation to the client insufficient.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Hurricane Case
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Hurricane Damage Assessment Context
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the unauthorized alteration of his sealed reports — and the resulting wrongful denial of legitimate hurricane damage claims — beyond the client relationship to appropriate regulatory, professional, and legal authorities, recognizing that the alteration of sealed engineering reports by a non-engineer constitutes a public welfare harm requiring escalation.
sourcetext: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
temporalscope: Upon learning from property owners that sealed reports had been altered and claims denied
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.296397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A Post-Discovery
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Altered sealed reports
appliedto: Residential property owners whose claims were denied
appliedto: XYZ Engineering firm
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon learning that his sealed reports were altered and used to deny legitimate insurance claims, Engineer A bears professional accountability obligations to acknowledge the situation, take corrective action, and report the unauthorized alteration — rather than treating the matter as solely the firm's responsibility
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires Engineer A to take responsibility for the integrity of his sealed work even when the alteration was made by others, because the seal creates a public trust relationship that demands active defense of its integrity
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability to the public and to the integrity of sealed documents overrides any residual loyalty to the employer who facilitated the unauthorized alteration
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.291569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Sealed Report Integrity Invoked for Engineer A Present Case Hurricane Reports
type: SealedReportIntegrityPreservationandUnauthorizedAlterationResponseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports altered by Supervisor B to deny legitimate property owner claims
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports were altered by Supervisor B without factual or technical basis, reversing Engineer A's findings of major structural damage; Engineer A bears an obligation to investigate, demand correction, and notify affected parties
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The professional seal creates a continuing accountability that survives the engineer's submission of the report; unauthorized alteration that reverses findings without factual basis triggers an affirmative obligation to investigate and demand correction
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case Report Author
principleclass: Sealed Report Integrity Preservation and Unauthorized Alteration Response Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings. If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
tensionresolution: The engineer's continuing accountability for sealed documents and the public protection rationale of the seal override employer loyalty and client direction when alterations misrepresent professional findings
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.292618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Supervisor B Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
type: Report-AlteringNon-EngineerSupervisor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Report Suppression Prohibition Analogously Invoked Against XYZ Engineering
adheres to principle: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Violated by XYZ Engineering
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by XYZ Engineering
adheres to principle: Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
adheres to principle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition Invoked Against Supervisor B
adheres to principle: Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition Violated by Supervisor B
has obligation: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Delegation Unauthorized Party Obligation
has obligation: Supervisor B Non-Engineer Firm Principal Engineering Report Control Prohibition Violation
has obligation: Supervisor B XYZ Engineering Non-Engineer Report Alteration Prohibition Violation
attributes: {'license': 'None — not a professional engineer', 'position': 'Principal of XYZ Engineering', 'employer': 'XYZ Engineering'}
caseinvolvement: Non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering who reviewed Engineer A's signed and sealed reports, directed Engineer A to alter conclusions without factual basis, and upon refusal took the reports and transmitted altered versions to the insurance company client
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'principal_of', 'target': 'XYZ Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'transmitted_altered_reports_to', 'target': 'Property Insurance Company Client'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Report-Altering Non-Engineer Supervisor
sourcetext: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Integrity Stamped Document Accountability
type: StampedDocumentContinuingTechnicalAccountabilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Hurricane Case Professional Association Disengagement Obligation
competes with: Engineer A Hurricane Case Third-Party Notification Obligation
prevails over: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
casecontext: Engineer A affixed his professional seal to hurricane damage assessment reports finding major structural damage. Those reports were subsequently altered by Supervisor B without authorization. Engineer A's professional seal creates a continuing bond of responsibility requiring him to stand behind, defend, and seek correction of the technical content of his sealed work.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer, XYZ Engineering)
obligationclass: Stamped Document Continuing Technical Accountability Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A bears continuing professional accountability for the technical integrity of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports, including the obligation to ensure that those reports accurately represent his professional findings and to take corrective action when he learns they have been altered without authorization.
sourcetext: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them.
temporalscope: Ongoing from the time of sealing the reports through discovery of the alteration and beyond
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: If no other information is available that would alter Engineer A's findings, then Engineer A should require immediate correction if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusions contained in Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.305449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Correction and Notification
type: SealedReportUnauthorizedAlterationCorrectionandNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Association with XYZ Engineering Fraudulent Enterprise
defeasible under: Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted
prevails over: Engineer A Non-Association with XYZ Engineering Fraudulent Enterprise
casecontext: Engineer A learned from residential property owners that his sealed reports had been altered to deny their legitimate hurricane damage claims; no technical basis existed for the alterations.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A Post-Discovery
derived from principle: Sealed Report Integrity Invoked for Engineer A Present Case Hurricane Reports
derived from principle: Sealed Report Integrity Preservation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Post-Alteration
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Correction and Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon learning that his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports had been altered by Supervisor B without factual or technical basis and used to deny legitimate insurance claims, Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative corrective action — including notifying the affected property owners, the insurance company client, and appropriate regulatory authorities — to correct the record and remediate the harm caused by the unauthorized alteration.
sourcetext: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
temporalscope: Upon learning from property owners that sealed reports had been altered and claims denied
textreferences: Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.295549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority Invoked by Engineer A
type: Non-SubordinationofSealedDocumentAuthoritytoUnlicensedDirection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A correctly refused to revise sealed reports based solely on the direction of Supervisor B, a non-licensed non-engineer principal, who provided no factual or technical basis for the requested changes — demonstrating that the seal represents Engineer A's personal professional judgment that cannot be overridden by unlicensed direction
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's refusal to alter sealed reports at Supervisor B's direction correctly applies the principle that sealed documents represent the engineer's personal professional judgment and legal accountability, which cannot be delegated to or overridden by non-licensed persons
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority to Unlicensed Direction
sourcetext: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
tensionresolution: The engineer's obligation to maintain the integrity of sealed documents overrides the employer's direction when that direction lacks factual or technical basis
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.288821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A BER 09-6 Pressure Resistance Sealed Document Obligation Violation
type: PressureResistanceinSealedDocumentModificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 09-6 Peer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Obligation Violation
defeasible under: Management Schedule Pressure on Engineer A — BER Case 09-6
casecontext: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released for construction. Engineer A, under this pressure and when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available, made unauthorized changes to Engineer B's sealed documents. The Board noted that engineers must resist such pressures.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 09-6 Engineer A Modification
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 09-6)
obligationclass: Pressure Resistance in Sealed Document Modification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist management pressure to complete and release design documents in a manner that required modifying Engineer B's sealed work without Engineer B's knowledge and consent, recognizing that time pressure and management encouragement do not justify ethically impermissible modifications to sealed documents.
sourcetext: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
temporalscope: At the time of receiving management pressure to release design documents
textreferences: Engineer A did so when neither Engineer B nor immediate management was available.
textreferences: Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released.
textreferences: While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.289591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Case Professional Association Disengagement Obligation
type: ProfessionalAssociationDisengagementfromReport-AlteringFraudulentFirmObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Integrity Stamped Document Accountability
competes with: Engineer A Public Welfare Safety Escalation After Report Alteration Discovery
defeasible under: Engineer A Conflict of Interest — Employer vs. Professional Integrity
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, altered Engineer A's sealed reports reversing findings of major structural damage, causing legitimate insurance claims to be denied. Continued employment by Engineer A at XYZ Engineering constitutes association with a fraudulent enterprise.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Professional Association Disengagement Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer, XYZ Engineering)
obligationclass: Professional Association Disengagement from Report-Altering Fraudulent Firm Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to disengage from professional association with XYZ Engineering upon discovering that Supervisor B has altered his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis and transmitted those altered reports to the insurance company in a manner that harms residential property owners.
sourcetext: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
temporalscope: Upon discovery that sealed reports were altered and used to deny legitimate claims
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
textreferences: Under the facts of the present case, this engineering document signing and sealing process appears to have been compromised and undermined for unknown motives and intentions.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.306052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Association with XYZ Engineering Fraudulent Enterprise
type: ProfessionalAssociationDisengagementfromReport-AlteringFraudulentFirmObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Duty to Report Supervisor B Misconduct to Professional Bodies
competes with: Engineer A Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Correction and Notification
defeasible under: Engineer A Competing Duties — Employer Loyalty vs. Public Welfare
casecontext: XYZ Engineering, through Supervisor B's unauthorized alteration of sealed reports, engaged in fraudulent conduct that harmed residential property owners; Engineer A's continued association constitutes association with a fraudulent enterprise.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Professional Association Disengagement Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Professional Association Disengagement from Report-Altering Fraudulent Firm Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disengage from professional association with XYZ Engineering upon discovering that Supervisor B had altered his sealed reports without factual or technical basis and transmitted them to the insurance company in a manner that caused wrongful denial of legitimate property damage claims.
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
temporalscope: Upon learning that sealed reports were altered and used to deny legitimate insurance claims
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.295263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Professional Association Disengagement Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
type: ProfessionalAssociationDisengagementObligationforFraudulentEnterprise
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Supervisor B's fraudulent alteration of sealed reports
appliedto: XYZ Engineering firm
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's continued association with XYZ Engineering — a firm whose principal has altered sealed engineering reports without technical basis to serve an insurance company's commercial interests — triggers the obligation to disassociate from or compel correction of the firm's fraudulent conduct, rather than passively continuing employment
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:09:09.111477+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: XYZ Engineering's facilitation of Supervisor B's alteration of sealed reports without technical basis constitutes a fraudulent enterprise that Engineer A cannot continue to associate with without taking affirmative steps to compel correction or disassociate
invokedby: Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
principleclass: Professional Association Disengagement Obligation for Fraudulent Enterprise
sourcetext: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
tensionresolution: The obligation to disassociate from fraudulent enterprise overrides employer loyalty; Engineer A must either compel correction of the firm's conduct or withdraw from the association
textreferences: Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
textreferences: There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A's report.
textreferences: Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.292120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Insurance Assessment
type: ForensicExpertHonestyandIntegrityinCivilLitigationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
competes with: Engineer A Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection in Hurricane Assessment
prevails over: Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by an insurance company to assess hurricane damage; his objective findings indicated hurricane-related damage in the majority of cases, contrary to the insurance company's commercial interest in attributing damage to pre-existing conditions.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status Violated by XYZ Engineering
derived from principle: Objectivity Invoked in Hurricane Damage Assessment Findings
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:10:49.142782+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity in Civil Litigation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to perform the hurricane damage forensic assessments with honesty and integrity, rendering objective technical findings based on his professional inspection rather than findings favorable to the insurance company client's commercial interest in denying claims.
sourcetext: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
temporalscope: Throughout the inspection and report preparation process
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes.
textreferences: The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
textreferences: The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.295964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Case Responsible Charge Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
type: SealedDocumentRevisionNon-SubordinationtoUnlicensedAuthorityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Insurance Assessment
defeasible under: Supervisor B Non-Engineer Report Falsification Direction
casecontext: Supervisor B, a non-engineer principal of XYZ Engineering, directed Engineer A to alter the conclusions of his sealed hurricane damage assessment reports, reversing findings of major structural damage to findings of minor damage. Engineer A refused this direction, which was the ethically correct response.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority Invoked by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:16:28.826834+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer, XYZ Engineering)
obligationclass: Sealed Document Revision Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refuse Supervisor B's direction to alter the conclusions of his signed and sealed hurricane damage assessment reports without factual or technical basis, recognizing that Supervisor B's status as a non-licensed, non-engineer principal did not give him authority to direct changes to Engineer A's sealed professional findings.
sourcetext: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
temporalscope: At the time Supervisor B directed Engineer A to alter his sealed report conclusions
textreferences: Any action to subsequently modify any aspect of the engineering documents by any party who did not actually draft the engineering documents or exercise 'responsible charge' over the preparation of the engineering documents thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and the veracity that this preparation and approval process is intended to embody.
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
textreferences: Such actions cannot be permitted to stand.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.305311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Responsible Charge Integrity Invoked in BER Case 09-6 Engineer A Modification
type: ResponsibleChargeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's sealed design documents modified by Engineer A under management pressure
balancingwith: Organizational pressure
balancingwith: Project delivery obligations
balancingwith: Time constraints
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's unauthorized modification of Engineer B's sealed design documents without consultation was found unethical because Engineer A had not exercised responsible charge over Engineer B's work and could not certify it through his own seal
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:14:25.275241+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even technical competence in the relevant field does not substitute for responsible charge — the engineer who modifies sealed documents must have exercised direct control and personal supervision over the original preparation
invokedby: Engineer A BER Case 09-6 Document Modifier
principleclass: Responsible Charge Engagement
sourcetext: Engineer A clearly did not exercise responsible charge (direct control or personal supervision) over the work in question, work which was either prepared or supervised by Engineer B.
tensionresolution: The Board found that management pressure and time constraints do not justify unauthorized modification of another engineer's sealed documents, even when the modifying engineer is technically competent
textreferences: Engineer A clearly did not exercise responsible charge (direct control or personal supervision) over the work in question, work which was either prepared or supervised by Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable.
textreferences: Even if Engineer A had some involvement in the work of Engineer B, it was not clear whether Engineer A possessed the competence in the field involved in order to sign and seal Engineer B's work.
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.292459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction

Engineer A Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
type: HurricaneDamageAssessmentEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked Against Alteration of Damage Findings
adheres to principle: Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Objectivity Invoked in Hurricane Damage Assessment Findings
adheres to principle: Objectivity Principle Invoked by Engineer A in Refusing Alterations
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A Post-Discovery
adheres to principle: Professional Association Disengagement Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Hurricane Case
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Hurricane Damage Assessment Context
adheres to principle: Sealed Report Integrity Invoked for Engineer A Present Case Hurricane Reports
adheres to principle: Sealed Report Integrity Preservation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Post-Alteration
adheres to principle: Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability Invoked by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Triggered for Engineer A
adheres to principle: Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Invoked for Residential Property Owners
adheres to principle: Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Obligation Invoked in Hurricane Assessment
has obligation: Engineer A Duty to Report Supervisor B Misconduct to Professional Bodies
has obligation: Engineer A Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Insurance Assessment
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Association with XYZ Engineering Fraudulent Enterprise
has obligation: Engineer A Objective and Complete Reporting in Hurricane Damage Assessments
has obligation: Engineer A Public Welfare Safety Escalation After Report Alteration Discovery
has obligation: Engineer A Refusal to Alter Sealed Reports Without Technical Basis
has obligation: Engineer A Sealed Document Revision Non-Subordination to Supervisor B
has obligation: Engineer A Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Correction and Notification
has obligation: Engineer A Stamped Document Continuing Accountability for Altered Reports
has obligation: Engineer A Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection in Hurricane Assessment
has obligation: Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Challenge Against Supervisor B
has obligation: Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting of Supervisor B to Licensing Board
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural assessment / forensic inspection', 'employer': 'XYZ Engineering'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed PE employed by XYZ Engineering who inspected hurricane-damaged residential properties, prepared and signed and sealed reports finding majority of damage to be hurricane-related, refused supervisor's direction to alter conclusions without factual basis, and later learned his sealed reports were altered and used to deny legitimate insurance claims
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 111
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 111
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T00:05:47.988093+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'XYZ Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'report_subject_affecting', 'target': 'Residential Property Owners'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Property Insurance Company Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Supervisor B Non-Engineer Principal'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Hurricane Damage Assessment Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, is employed by engineering firm XYZ Engineering
textreferences: Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected
textreferences: Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports
textreferences: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, is employed by engineering firm XYZ Engineering
textreferences: Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes
textreferences: He then signs and seals the reports
wasattributedto: Case 111 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T00:24:48.299424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 111 Extraction