ProEthica Case 114 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726290
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence — Legislative Dam Analysis Criticism
type: AdverseTechnicalFindingNon-EquivalencetoMaliciousReputationInjuryPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Mutual adverse technical criticism before state legislature committee on dam design
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
balancingwith: Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Peer Critique Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Each engineer's criticism of the other's analysis and findings — including the implicit conclusion that the other's engineering position is incorrect — does not constitute a malicious or false attempt to injure the other's professional reputation, because such adverse technical findings are the expected output of competing engineering analyses presented in a legislative forum.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the legislative hearing context, adverse technical criticism of a peer's engineering analysis is a normal and expected feature of the process; the legislature specifically called hearings to receive competing technical views, making adverse findings an institutionally sanctioned form of peer engagement.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Principle
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
tensionresolution: The non-equivalence principle resolves the potential tension with reputation-injury prohibitions by establishing that good-faith adverse technical findings — even when self-interested in the sense that each engineer's client benefits from the other's position being rejected — do not cross the threshold of malicious or false injury.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.730070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

BER_Legislative_Testimony_Case_Precedent
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case on Engineer Legislative Testimony and Professional Criticism
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
usedby: Future engineers and ethics reviewers facing analogous situations
usedincontext: This case itself constitutes a BER case precedent establishing norms for engineers testifying before legislative bodies with competing technical analyses and engaging in professional criticism of each other's work
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.728272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Indictment Recognition
type: LargeComplexProjectMultipleSoundApproachesRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER evaluating whether the mutual peer criticism and competing engineering positions of the two legislative witnesses constituted ethics violations.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
obligationclass: Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The BER was obligated to recognize that for a large and complicated engineering problem such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches all based on sound engineering principles, and that neither the State Power Commission PE (low dams) nor the Private Power Company PE (one high dam) could be said to be 'incorrect' or unethical for advocating their respective technically sound positions.
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
temporalscope: During ethics review of the legislative testimony
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
textreferences: Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.748791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition
type: LargeComplexProjectMultipleSoundEngineeringApproachesRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Engineering Approaches Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER possessed the capability to recognize that for a large and complicated engineering problem such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches all based on sound engineering principles, and that the approach finally adopted may properly reflect public policy determinations as well as engineering diagnoses.
casecontext: BER review of ethics complaints arising from competing legislative testimony on dam configuration for water-power complex
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that both the low-dams and one-high-dam positions represent sound engineering approaches and that neither engineer can be said to be 'incorrect'
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Indictment Recognition
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment Recognition
type: PublicPolicyInfrastructureDecisionEngineeringEfficiencyOverrideNon-IndictmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Policy Infrastructure Decision Engineering Efficiency Override Non-Indictment Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER possessed the capability to recognize that when the state legislature resolves the dam configuration question through public policy considerations, the engineer whose technically sound but policy-overridden recommendation was not adopted is not thereby shown to have been incorrect, unethical, or incompetent.
casecontext: BER review of ethics complaints arising from competing legislative testimony on dam configuration; legislature may ultimately decide based on public policy rather than pure engineering efficiency
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that public policy override of engineering efficiency recommendation does not constitute ethical indictment of the efficiency-advocating engineer
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment of Efficiency-Advocate Engineer
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.729213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment of Efficiency-Advocate Engineer
type: PublicPolicyOverrideofEngineeringEfficiencyNon-Ethical-IndictmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER evaluating the ethics of competing engineering positions on dam configuration (series of low dams vs. one high dam) before the state legislative committee.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Board of Ethical Review (BER)
obligationclass: Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency Non-Ethical-Indictment Obligation
obligationstatement: The BER was obligated to recognize that when a large public infrastructure project is ultimately resolved by public policy considerations rather than pure engineering efficiency, neither the engineer who advocated the efficiency-optimized solution nor the engineer who advocated the policy-preferred solution can be said to have acted unethically, because the approach finally adopted may properly reflect both engineering diagnoses and determinations of public policy.
sourcetext: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
temporalscope: During ethics review
textreferences: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Both Engineers Competing Public Goods Balanced Legislative Testimony Constraint
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineers testifying before state legislative committee on dam configuration affecting water supply, flood control, and electric power production
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Both Engineers
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Both the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE were constrained to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in their legislative testimony, prohibiting the distortion, suppression, or selective omission of findings that favor one public good over another in the presentation of their competing dam configuration analyses.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 7; Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint; BER case discussion
sourcetext: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
textreferences: the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Both Engineers Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Permissibility
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyCivicAdvocacyCorrectnessNon-RequirementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER evaluating whether engineers' competing legislative testimony positions were ethically permissible
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: BER and Ethics Review Body
constraintclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER was constrained to recognize that the correctness or ultimate validity of each engineer's dam configuration opinion was not germane to the ethics evaluation — it was sufficient that each engineer was sincere in the opinion and believed it served the public interest, prohibiting the conditioning of advocacy permissibility on the engineer's ability to prove the substantive correctness of the low-dams or high-dam position.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint; BER case discussion
sourcetext: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
temporalscope: During ethics review of the legislative testimony
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Canon 24 Peer Critic Engineering Witness
type: Due-RestraintPeerCriticEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'canon_obligations': ['Canon 24 due restraint', 'Canon 5 opinion grounding', 'Canon 7 factual basis'], 'permitted_forums': ['Engineering society gatherings', 'Engineering press', 'Public hearings', 'Courts', 'Commissions', 'Tribunals'], 'criticism_basis': 'Engineering conclusions, alternative analyses, application of engineering data'}
caseinvolvement: An engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer before a public body, commission, court, or in engineering society gatherings or the engineering press, subject to Canon 24's due restraint obligation — required to avoid personalities and abuse, ground criticism in engineering conclusions, and offer alternative analyses.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:10.260641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:10.260641+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_critic_of', 'target': 'Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client, employer, or public interest'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Due-Restraint Peer Critic Engineer
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint'
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint'
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press
textreferences: the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses
textreferences: this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.733292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Canon 24 Peer Critic Engineering Witness — Due-Restraint Self-Application
type: PublicInterestEngineeringPeerCritiqueHigh-LevelProfessionalDeportmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Engineering Peer Critique High-Level Professional Deportment Capability
capabilitystatement: The Canon 24 peer critic engineering witness must possess the capability to apply due restraint when publicly criticizing another engineer's work — avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions and data, and offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks.
casecontext: Public criticism of another engineer's work in any forum including legislative committees, commissions, courts, and engineering society gatherings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Offering public criticism of another engineer's work before a public body, commission, court, or engineering society gathering with due restraint per Canon 24
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Canon 24 Peer Critic Engineering Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Canon 24- 'He will exercise due restraint in criticizing another engineer's work in public, recognizing the fact that the engineering societies and the engineering press provide the proper forum for technical discussions and criticism.'
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
textreferences: Canon 24- 'He will exercise due restraint in criticizing another engineer's work in public, recognizing the fact that the engineering societies and the engineering press provide the proper forum for technical discussions and criticism.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.750909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Case 114 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

CausalLink_Evaluate Engineers' Ethical Co
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

CausalLink_Publicly Criticize Opposing An
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

CausalLink_Testify for Low Dams
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

CausalLink_Testify for Single High Dam
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Competing Analyses Made Public
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Competing Low Dam vs. High Dam Design Approaches
type: CompetingDesignApproachesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the multi-year legislative debate and during the committee hearings
affectedparties: General citizenry
affectedparties: Private power company
affectedparties: State legislature
affectedparties: State power commission
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
stateclass: Competing Design Approaches State
subject: Two technically distinct engineering solutions — series of low dams versus one high dam — each claimed to achieve the same water supply, flood control, and power production objectives
terminatedby: Legislative adoption of a specific bill or approach
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
triggeringevent: Legislative debate over the most efficient and economical method to achieve water supply, flood control, and electric power goals
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.731239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Competing Public Goods Balancing — Water Supply Flood Control Power Production
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Legislative decision on water supply, flood control, and electric power production infrastructure
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both engineers are advising on a project that simultaneously serves multiple public goods — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — and each must present the trade-offs of their preferred solution (low dams vs. high dam) fully and objectively so the legislature can make an informed policy decision balancing these competing public interests.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineers' obligation is not merely to advocate for their client's preferred solution but to ensure the legislature has sufficient technical information to balance the competing public goods at stake — water supply security, flood control effectiveness, and power production efficiency.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
sourcetext: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power.
tensionresolution: The competing public goods principle is satisfied when each engineer presents voluminous supporting data for their position, enabling the legislature to assess the trade-offs across all three public goods rather than relying on advocacy alone.
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power.
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.735400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that conflicting engineering opinions at legislative hearings are ethically permissible, the analysis must recognize that each engineer's retained status creates a structural tension that does not automatically constitute an ethical violation but does impose an affirmative disclosure obligation. Both the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE represent institutional parties with direct financial or regulatory stakes in the legislative outcome. The ethical permissibility of their testimony is conditioned not merely on the technical quality of their analyses but on the legislature's ability to weigh that testimony with full awareness of each witness's institutional affiliation. Failure to disclose such affiliation at the outset of testimony would constitute an independent ethical violation — separate from and not cured by the technical soundness of the engineering data submitted — because it deprives the legislative committee of information essential to calibrating the weight and potential bias of expert opinion. The Board's conclusion of permissibility implicitly assumes such disclosure occurred; where it does not, the ethical calculus changes materially.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Rule-10
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's standard of 'high level of professional deportment' as the operative constraint on permissible peer criticism, while directionally sound, is insufficiently specified to function as a practically enforceable ethical boundary. The standard identifies the outer limit — that criticism must not descend into personal disparagement of competence or integrity — but provides no intermediate guidance for the wide range of conduct between dispassionate technical disagreement and outright personal attack. Specifically, the standard does not address whether an engineer may characterize an opposing engineer's methodology as fundamentally flawed versus merely reaching a different conclusion from the same data, whether rhetorical emphasis or selective presentation of data constitutes a deportment violation, or who bears institutional responsibility for making that determination in real time before a legislative body. The Board's framework would be strengthened by recognizing that the deportment standard imposes a self-regulatory obligation on each engineer — requiring each to affirmatively distinguish technical criticism of methodology and conclusions from any implication of bad faith or professional incompetence on the part of the opposing engineer — and that crossing this line would trigger violations of the canons governing relations with fellow engineers regardless of the public interest context of the testimony.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that conflicting engineering opinions are ethically permissible does not fully resolve the deeper epistemic obligation that both engineers bear when testifying on questions involving genuinely indeterminate variables. The dam design controversy necessarily rests on projected population growth, future water demand, long-range cost estimates, and hydrological forecasts — all of which carry inherent uncertainty that cannot be resolved by engineering analysis alone. An engineer who presents conclusions derived from such estimates with unqualified confidence, without acknowledging the range of uncertainty or the sensitivity of conclusions to changes in underlying assumptions, risks misleading the legislative committee even if every individual data point submitted is accurate. The ethical obligation of objectivity and data-grounded testimony therefore extends beyond the accuracy of submitted data to encompass an affirmative duty to characterize the epistemic status of that data — distinguishing established engineering fact from projection, and identifying where reasonable engineers applying sound methodology could reach materially different conclusions depending on which assumptions are adopted. Both engineers' submission of voluminous data satisfies the completeness obligation but does not by itself discharge the epistemic humility obligation, which requires explicit acknowledgment of the indeterminate factors underlying each position. Failure to make such acknowledgment, while not necessarily rising to the level of a canon violation in every instance, represents a meaningful departure from the full objectivity standard that legislative bodies are entitled to expect from retained engineering experts.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's framework for permissible legislative advocacy by retained engineers implicitly treats the advocacy-objectivity tension as resolved by the requirement of good faith and factual grounding, but does not address the structural problem that arises when an engineer's honest technical conviction and the client's institutional interest happen to be perfectly aligned. The ethical analysis cannot simply presume good faith where the engineer's position mirrors the client's financial interest without independent verification that the engineer's conviction preceded and is independent of the retention relationship. A more complete ethical framework would require each engineer to be able to demonstrate — at least to themselves and to the profession — that their technical conclusion was reached through independent analysis and would have been the same regardless of who retained them. This does not mean that retained engineers cannot advocate for positions that benefit their clients; it means that the ethical legitimacy of such advocacy depends on the integrity of the analytical process that generated the conclusion, not merely on the technical quality of the data submitted in support of it. Where an engineer cannot make this showing, the testimony may satisfy the formal requirements of the canons while falling short of the substantive objectivity standard that gives expert legislative testimony its ethical justification.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Rule-10
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that legislative committees constitute appropriate forums for engineering peer criticism — extending the permissibility of such criticism beyond courts and regulatory commissions to legislative bodies — carries an important but unaddressed corollary: the adversarial dynamic that peer criticism generates in a legislative setting may, if unchecked, distort rather than inform legislative deliberation. Unlike courts, which have procedural mechanisms for managing expert testimony and cross-examination, or regulatory commissions with technical staff capable of independently evaluating competing analyses, legislative committees typically lack the institutional capacity to adjudicate between two bodies of voluminous, technically complex, and mutually contradictory engineering data. The ethical permissibility of mutual criticism therefore does not guarantee that such criticism produces better legislative outcomes; it may instead create a spectacle of expert disagreement that leaves legislators less informed than a single, balanced, neutral technical assessment would have done. Engineers appearing before legislative bodies therefore bear a heightened obligation — beyond what the Board explicitly articulates — to structure their criticism constructively, identifying not merely the flaws in the opposing analysis but the specific factual or methodological questions that the legislature would need to resolve in order to make an informed policy choice. This obligation does not prohibit advocacy but channels it toward the legislature's actual informational needs rather than toward the rhetorical defeat of the opposing engineer.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's framework correctly insulates good-faith, data-grounded engineering testimony from retroactive ethical indictment based on subsequent project failure, but this protection is not unconditional and its limits deserve explicit articulation. If a legislative body adopts one engineer's recommended approach and that approach subsequently causes public harm, the ethical analysis of the testimony does not change retroactively — provided the engineer's testimony accurately represented the state of engineering knowledge at the time, acknowledged material uncertainties, and did not suppress or mischaracterize data that would have been material to the legislative decision. However, if post-adoption evidence reveals that the engineer possessed information at the time of testimony that was inconsistent with the conclusions presented — or that the engineer's confidence in projections was not warranted by the underlying data — the retroactive ethical analysis would be substantially different. Furthermore, the Board's framework does not address whether the engineer whose approach was rejected retains any continuing professional obligation after the legislative decision is made. Where the rejected engineer has identified specific safety risks or unresolved technical vulnerabilities in the adopted approach, the public interest canon may impose a residual obligation to bring those concerns to appropriate authorities — not to relitigate the legislative decision, but to ensure that implementation proceeds with awareness of the risks that the legislative process may not have fully resolved.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Rule-10
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: The fact that each engineer is retained by and represents an interested party creates a material conflict of interest that should be affirmatively disclosed to the legislative committee before testimony begins. While the Board's conclusion focuses on the permissibility of conflicting opinions and peer criticism, it does not address the threshold obligation of disclosure. An engineer appearing before a legislative body as an expert witness occupies a dual role — advocate for a client and technical resource for a public deliberative body — and the legislature is entitled to calibrate the weight it assigns to testimony based on the witness's institutional affiliations. Failure to disclose retention by the state power commission or the private power company before offering technical conclusions would constitute an independent ethical violation under the objectivity and public interest canons, regardless of the technical quality of the testimony itself. The ethical permissibility of the testimony's content does not cure a procedural failure to disclose the conditions under which that testimony was produced. Both engineers therefore bear an affirmative pre-testimony disclosure obligation that is logically prior to, and analytically separable from, the Board's finding on the permissibility of conflicting opinions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Engineering-Factual-Basis-Requirement-Standard-Instance
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Where the engineering question involves genuinely indeterminate factors — including future population growth, water demand projections, and cost estimates subject to wide variance — both engineers bear an affirmative ethical obligation to explicitly acknowledge the epistemic limits of their analyses to the legislative committee, rather than presenting conclusions with unqualified confidence. The Board's conclusion permits conflicting opinions and peer criticism but implicitly assumes that the testimony is grounded in factual data. However, when the underlying data itself rests on estimates and projections that are inherently uncertain, presenting conclusions as though they were determinate findings would mislead the legislature about the reliability of the technical basis for each position. Epistemic humility is not merely a professional virtue in this context; it is an ethical requirement flowing from the public interest canon. An engineer who presents cost or demand projections as settled facts, knowing they are estimates subject to significant variance, crosses from permissible advocacy into a form of misrepresentation that the Board's framework does not sanction. Both engineers' obligations to submit voluminous data are necessary but not sufficient — the data must be accompanied by honest characterization of its limitations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Public-Safety-Standards-Hearing-Participation-Framework-Instance
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: If the legislature adopts the engineering approach that one of the testifying engineers opposed, that engineer's professional duty does not categorically terminate at the moment of legislative decision. The Board's conclusion addresses the permissibility of testimony and peer criticism during the hearing process, but does not resolve what obligations survive the legislative outcome. Where the engineer who advocated against the adopted approach possesses specific technical knowledge of unresolved safety risks or material uncertainties that were not fully credited in the legislative deliberation, the public interest canon imposes a continuing obligation to flag those concerns through appropriate channels — not to relitigate the policy decision, but to ensure that implementation proceeds with awareness of known risks. This continuing obligation is narrower than the testimony obligation: it does not require the engineer to publicly oppose the legislature's choice, but it does require the engineer to communicate safety-relevant information to appropriate authorities if implementation proceeds in a manner that the engineer reasonably believes creates public danger. The engineer's role as a retained advocate ends with the legislative decision; the engineer's role as a professional with public safety obligations does not.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Rule-10
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The standard of 'high level of professional deportment' required for permissible peer criticism is insufficiently defined to function as a meaningfully enforceable ethical constraint in the legislative hearing context. The Board's conclusion conditions ethical permissibility on this standard without specifying what conduct it prohibits, who bears responsibility for making the determination, or what procedural mechanism exists for enforcement before a legislative body. In practice, the standard operates as a post-hoc evaluative criterion rather than a prospective behavioral guide. The responsibility for determining when criticism has crossed from legitimate technical challenge into unprofessional conduct falls ambiguously across multiple actors — the engineers themselves through self-regulation, the legislative committee through its procedural authority, and the NSPE Board through retrospective ethics review — without clear allocation of primary responsibility. This ambiguity is not merely academic: in an adversarial legislative hearing where both engineers are retained advocates with institutional interests at stake, the incentive structure may systematically push toward more aggressive criticism than the deportment standard contemplates, with no real-time enforcement mechanism to check it. The Board should articulate specific behavioral markers — such as prohibitions on impugning professional integrity, mischaracterizing opposing data, or making claims unsupported by submitted evidence — to give the deportment standard operational content.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Legislative_Testimony
cited provision3: Engineering-Factual-Basis-Requirement-Standard-Instance
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The principle of loyalty to client within ethical limits and the objectivity obligation create a genuine and underappreciated tension in the legislative testimony context that the Board's conclusion does not fully resolve. An engineer retained by the state power commission or a private power company is not a neutral expert; the engineer is an institutional advocate whose analysis was commissioned to support a predetermined preferred outcome. The ethical framework permits this arrangement but requires that advocacy remain grounded in honest technical conviction. The critical boundary is crossed when an engineer selectively presents data, omits material uncertainties, or frames conclusions in ways designed to obscure rather than illuminate the technical landscape for the legislature. Permissible loyal representation means presenting the strongest honest case for the client's preferred approach; it does not permit suppressing data that would undermine that case or overstating the certainty of projections that are genuinely contested. The legislature, as the ultimate decision-making authority on a public infrastructure question, is entitled to the full technical picture even when that picture is inconvenient for the retaining client. Engineers who subordinate completeness of disclosure to client preference cross from loyal advocacy into a compromise of objectivity that the canons do not permit.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Regulatory_Testimony_Affiliation_Disclosure_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q203 and Q301: The ethical analysis of whether both engineers fulfilled their duty of objectivity and honest conviction cannot rest on a bare presumption of good faith when each engineer's position aligns perfectly with the financial or institutional interests of their retaining client. The Board's framework implicitly assumes good faith without requiring affirmative evidence that each engineer's honest technical conviction preceded and is independent of client retention. From a deontological perspective, this is an insufficient basis for ethical clearance: the duty of objectivity is not satisfied merely by the absence of proven bad faith; it requires that the engineer's professional judgment be genuinely independent of client pressure. The ethical analysis should therefore require, at minimum, that each engineer be able to demonstrate that their technical conclusions were reached through independent analysis and would have been the same regardless of which party retained them. Where an engineer's conclusions track client interests with perfect fidelity across every contested technical question — cost estimates, efficiency projections, growth assumptions — the alignment itself becomes ethically relevant evidence that warrants scrutiny rather than presumptive acceptance. The Board's conclusion is correct that honest disagreement is permissible, but the honesty of the disagreement should not be assumed; it should be a condition that each engineer is expected to be able to substantiate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Civic_Service_Obligation_Standard_Instance
cited provision3: Public-Safety-Standards-Hearing-Participation-Framework-Instance
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q204 and Q302: The extension of the peer criticism forum to legislative committees raises a consequentialist concern that the Board's conclusion does not adequately address: adversarial mutual criticism between retained experts may distort rather than improve legislative deliberation by substituting the appearance of technical debate for the substantive technical guidance that the legislature actually needs. In a model where both testifying engineers are retained advocates, the legislature receives not two independent expert opinions but two institutionally filtered analyses, each optimized to support a predetermined conclusion. The mutual criticism that results may illuminate genuine technical disagreements, but it may equally reflect strategic efforts to undermine the opposing position rather than honest engagement with its merits. From a consequentialist perspective, the question is whether this adversarial model produces better public policy outcomes than alternatives — such as requiring the legislature to also commission testimony from unaffiliated neutral engineers, or requiring retained engineers to explicitly identify the strongest technical arguments for the opposing position before criticizing it. The Board's conclusion that the practice is ethically permissible does not establish that it is epistemically optimal for legislative decision-making, and the ethical framework would be strengthened by acknowledging this gap and encouraging supplementary mechanisms for ensuring that legislative bodies receive genuinely disinterested technical input alongside retained expert advocacy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer-Professional-Criticism-Conduct-Standard-Instance
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If either engineer's criticism of the other had crossed from technical analysis into personal disparagement of the opposing engineer's competence or integrity, the Board's finding of ethical permissibility would be reversed. The condition of 'high level of professional deportment' that the Board identifies as necessary for permissible peer criticism would be violated by conduct that attacks the opposing engineer as a professional rather than engaging with the technical substance of the opposing analysis. Specific canons implicated would include those requiring engineers to act with honesty and integrity, to avoid conduct that tends to bring discredit upon the profession, and to treat professional colleagues with respect. The ethical distinction is between saying 'the opposing analysis reaches an incorrect conclusion because it underestimates sedimentation rates based on the data submitted' — which is permissible technical criticism — and saying 'the opposing engineer is incompetent or has produced a dishonest analysis' — which is personal disparagement that the canons do not permit. The legislative forum does not lower the standard of professional conduct; if anything, the public and civic character of legislative testimony heightens the obligation to model professional behavior, because disparagement before a legislative committee damages not only the targeted engineer's reputation but also public confidence in engineering expertise as a reliable basis for infrastructure policy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Public-Safety-Standards-Hearing-Participation-Framework-Instance
cited provision3: BER_Legislative_Testimony_Case_Precedent
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If the legislature adopted the high dam solution and it subsequently failed causing public harm, the ethical analysis of the private power company engineer's testimony would not retroactively change under the Board's framework, provided the testimony was offered in good faith and grounded in honest technical analysis at the time it was given. The Board's framework correctly insulates good-faith, data-grounded testimony from post-hoc ethical indictment based on outcome, because engineering judgment is inherently probabilistic and the ethical quality of testimony must be assessed at the time of the testimony, not in light of subsequent events. However, this insulation is conditional: it applies only where the engineer genuinely believed the analysis was sound and disclosed material uncertainties honestly. If post-failure investigation revealed that the engineer had suppressed known risk data, overstated cost advantages, or presented uncertain projections as settled findings, the ethical analysis would change — not because the dam failed, but because the testimony would be shown to have been dishonest at the time it was given. The outcome-independence of the ethical assessment thus depends entirely on the integrity of the testimony process, reinforcing the importance of the epistemic humility and disclosure obligations identified in response to Q102.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_Legislative_Testimony
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If both engineers had testified as independent private citizens rather than as retained representatives of institutional clients, the advocacy-objectivity tension identified in the Board's analysis would be substantially reduced but not entirely eliminated. The absence of a retaining client removes the structural incentive to subordinate technical judgment to institutional interest, and eliminates the disclosure obligation regarding client affiliation. However, independent engineers testifying before a legislative committee would still be subject to the same substantive ethical obligations: grounding opinions in honest technical conviction, acknowledging epistemic limits, maintaining professional deportment in peer criticism, and serving the public interest. The ethical framework governing the content and manner of testimony would be materially the same; what would change is the presumptive starting point for assessing good faith. A retained engineer's alignment with client interests requires affirmative explanation; an independent engineer's position is presumptively free of that structural bias. The practical implication is that the ethical analysis of retained legislative witnesses should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny — not because retained engineers are presumed dishonest, but because the structural conditions of their engagement create incentives that independent witnesses do not face, and the ethical framework should be calibrated to account for those structural differences rather than treating retained and independent witnesses as ethically equivalent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Rule-10
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Loyalty to Client Within Ethical Limits and the Objectivity Obligation for data-grounded legislative testimony was resolved not by subordinating one to the other, but by treating honest, fact-grounded advocacy as simultaneously satisfying both. The Board's framework implicitly holds that a retained engineer who genuinely believes in the technical position being advanced, submits voluminous supporting data, and maintains professional deportment is not compromising objectivity merely by advocating for a client's preferred outcome. The resolution depends critically on the sequence of conviction: the engineer's honest technical judgment must precede and independently ground the advocacy, not be manufactured to serve the client's interest. Where that sequence holds, client loyalty and objectivity are complementary rather than conflicting. Where it does not — where the engineer's conclusion is shaped by the retainer rather than by the analysis — both principles are violated simultaneously. This case teaches that the advocacy-objectivity tension in retained expert testimony is resolved through the internal epistemic condition of honest prior conviction, not through structural independence from the client.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Model-Law-Section-2d-Definition-of-Engineering
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency and the Engineer Public Testimony Role interact in this case to establish a division of institutional authority that has direct ethical implications for how engineers should frame their testimony. The Board's framework recognizes that a legislature may legitimately choose a less efficient engineering solution for policy reasons — balancing water supply, flood control, and power production against cost, environmental impact, and community preference — and that an engineer who advocates purely on efficiency grounds is not thereby misleading the legislature, provided the engineer does not affirmatively misrepresent the policy dimension as settled by engineering analysis alone. The ethical risk arises when an engineer presents a technically superior solution as if it were the only legitimate choice, collapsing the distinction between engineering judgment and policy judgment. This case teaches that the Engineer Public Testimony Role at a legislative hearing carries an implicit obligation to demarcate the boundary between what engineering analysis can determine — relative efficiency, cost estimates, structural feasibility — and what it cannot determine — the weighting of competing public goods, distributional consequences, and community values. Failure to maintain that demarcation does not merely mislead the legislature; it usurps a policy function that belongs to the elected body, constituting an independent ethical failure distinct from any inaccuracy in the technical data itself.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Rule-10
cited provision3: Engineer-Professional-Criticism-Conduct-Standard-Instance
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The principle of Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension — treating a legislative committee as a legitimate public body before which peer criticism is permissible — and the principle of Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment interact to create a framework that is permissive in scope but demanding in manner. The Board resolves the tension between these principles not by restricting the forum or the subject matter of criticism, but by imposing a conduct standard — 'high level of professional deportment' — as the sole operative constraint. This resolution has a significant structural implication: it shifts the entire ethical burden from what engineers may say to how they say it, leaving the legislature exposed to the full adversarial force of competing retained expert testimony without any structural mechanism — such as mandatory disclosure of epistemic uncertainty, required acknowledgment of indeterminate factors, or affirmative identification of areas of technical agreement — to help the legislative body distinguish genuine technical disagreement from advocacy-driven framing. The case thus reveals a latent tension between the Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility principle and the Honest Disagreement Permissibility principle: the former authorizes aggressive mutual criticism, while the latter presupposes that disagreement is genuine and not manufactured by the adversarial structure of retained testimony. The deportment standard alone cannot resolve this deeper tension, because professional manner is orthogonal to epistemic sincerity. A more complete ethical framework would require both high deportment and affirmative epistemic transparency — including acknowledgment of the Engineering Opinion Indeterminacy inherent in cost and growth estimates — as joint conditions for permissible peer criticism before a legislative body.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should the retained engineer affirmatively disclose client affiliation and the associated interest to the legislative committee before offering engineering testimony, or proceed without disclosure and allow the testimony to be evaluated solely on its technical merits?
focus: Each engineer is retained by an interested party — one by a public agency, one by a private company — and must decide whether to affirmatively disclose that retained status and the associated financial or institutional interest to the legislative committee before presenting technical testimony. The retained relationship creates a structural conflict between the engineer's role as an objective technical expert and the client's preferred policy outcome.
option1: Before presenting technical findings, explicitly inform the legislative committee of the retaining party's identity, the nature of the financial or institutional relationship, and any interest the client holds in the legislative outcome, so that committee members can properly calibrate the weight of the testimony.
option2: Present engineering data and conclusions without volunteering the retained relationship, relying on the committee to independently investigate affiliations and treating the technical quality of the submission as sufficient to establish credibility.
option3: Disclose the retained relationship and additionally clarify on the record which elements of the testimony reflect the engineer's independent professional judgment versus positions advanced at the client's direction, preserving the honest-conviction prerequisite while fully informing the legislature.
role label: Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (State Power Commission PE or Private Power Company PE)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should the testifying engineer present cost and demand projections as definitive engineering conclusions, or explicitly acknowledge to the legislative committee that the opinion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors subject to significant variance?
focus: Both engineers are testifying on a large, complex water-power infrastructure project whose engineering conclusions depend heavily on indeterminate estimates — future population growth, water demand projections, construction cost variances, and equipment efficiency trends. Each engineer must decide whether to present these estimate-dependent conclusions as settled engineering fact or to transparently acknowledge the epistemic uncertainty underlying the analysis.
option1: Deliver cost projections, demand forecasts, and efficiency comparisons as firm engineering findings without qualifying their estimate-based character, maximizing the persuasive force of the testimony in support of the client's preferred solution.
option2: Explicitly inform the legislative committee that the engineering opinion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors — including construction cost by each method, population growth trajectories, and future equipment efficiency — and present the range of uncertainty so that the legislature can properly calibrate the evidentiary weight of the testimony.
option3: Disclose the estimate-based character of the analysis and additionally identify the specific threshold conditions — e.g., higher-than-projected population growth, lower construction cost differentials — under which the opposing engineer's solution would become the more efficient choice, fulfilling the competing-public-goods balanced advisory obligation.
role label: Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (State Power Commission PE or Private Power Company PE)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: When criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis before the legislative committee, should the engineer confine criticism to technical substance and data, or extend it to characterizations of the opposing engineer's professional competence or motivations?
focus: During legislative testimony, each engineer must decide how to address the opposing engineer's analysis and conclusions. The engineers may criticize the opposing technical work — which is permissible and expected in this adversarial legislative forum — but must choose whether that criticism remains grounded in engineering data and professional deportment or extends into characterizations of the opposing engineer's competence, integrity, or professional judgment.
option1: Limit all criticism of the opposing engineer's work to specific engineering findings, data interpretations, cost methodology, and technical conclusions, offering the committee an alternative analysis rather than characterizing the opposing engineer's competence, motives, or professional integrity — fully satisfying Canon 24's due-restraint requirement.
option2: Go beyond technical disagreement to suggest that the opposing engineer's conclusions reflect incompetence, bias toward the retaining client, or professional failure, framing the disagreement as a question of the opposing engineer's fitness rather than a legitimate difference in engineering judgment.
option3: Criticize the opposing engineer's specific technical methodology and conclusions on engineering grounds while affirmatively acknowledging to the committee that the opposing approach is a technically defensible alternative grounded in sound engineering principles, satisfying both Canon 24 restraint and the multiple-sound-approaches recognition obligation.
role label: Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (State Power Commission PE or Private Power Company PE)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: After the legislature adopts the opposing engineering approach, does the engineer whose position was rejected have a continuing ethical obligation to flag unresolved safety or technical concerns about the adopted solution, or does the legislative decision extinguish that obligation?
focus: The legislature ultimately adopts the engineering approach that one of the testifying engineers opposed — for example, choosing the high-dam solution over the series of low dams, potentially for public policy reasons unrelated to pure engineering efficiency. The engineer whose preferred approach was rejected must decide whether any continuing ethical obligation attaches to the post-decision phase, particularly if the engineer has residual concerns about the adopted approach.
option1: Accept the legislature's policy determination as a legitimate exercise of public authority that may properly reflect non-engineering considerations, recognize that the adopted approach is technically sound even if not the engineer's preferred solution, and refrain from continuing to advocate for the rejected approach in ways that could undermine implementation of the adopted plan.
option2: Where the engineer holds specific, data-grounded concerns about safety or technical adequacy of the adopted approach — distinct from mere preference for the alternative — discharge a continuing public-welfare obligation by communicating those concerns through appropriate professional or regulatory channels, not as continued advocacy for the rejected solution but as fulfillment of the paramount duty to public safety.
option3: Continue publicly advocating for the rejected engineering solution after the legislative decision, treating the policy determination as reversible and using professional standing to campaign against implementation of the adopted approach, regardless of whether specific safety concerns justify continued intervention.
role label: Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (whose position was not adopted)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should an ethics adjudicating body treat the alignment of an engineer's technical conclusion with the retaining client's financial interest, or the legislature's rejection of the engineer's preferred approach, as evidence of an ethical violation requiring sanction?
focus: An ethics adjudicating body is evaluating whether either engineer acted unethically by advocating a position that happened to align perfectly with the retaining client's financial interest, or by losing the legislative debate. The adjudicating body must decide whether to treat the alignment between the engineer's technical conclusion and the client's preferred outcome — or the subsequent legislative rejection of one engineer's position — as evidence of ethical failure.
option1: Assess each engineer's conduct exclusively on whether the testimony was grounded in honest professional conviction, supported by complete engineering data, and conducted with professional deportment — treating client-interest alignment and legislative outcome as irrelevant to the ethical evaluation, consistent with the good-faith sincerity sufficiency standard.
option2: Treat the fact that each engineer's technical conclusion aligned with the retaining client's preferred outcome as presumptive evidence that the testimony was advocacy rather than objective engineering judgment, shifting the burden to the engineer to affirmatively disprove client influence on the technical conclusions.
option3: Treat the legislature's adoption of the opposing approach as retrospective evidence that the rejected engineer's analysis was technically unsound or in bad faith, using the policy outcome as a proxy for the quality of the engineering judgment underlying the rejected testimony.
role label: Ethics Adjudicating Body (Board of Ethical Review or equivalent)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Execution
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebatePost-DecisionAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, both engineers and any reviewing ethics body must recognize that the legislative decision is legitimate and that all involved engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions
casecontext: Legislative resolution of competing dam design proposals; post-decision ethical assessment
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that post-legislative-decision, neither engineer's position constitutes an ethical violation
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Private Company PE
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebatePost-DecisionAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, the private power company PE must recognize that the legislative decision is legitimate and that all involved engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions
casecontext: Legislative resolution of competing dam design proposals; post-decision ethical assessment
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that post-legislative-decision, neither engineer's position constitutes an ethical violation
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.744104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Ethical Non-Indictment
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDisagreementPost-DecisionAcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Multi-year public and legislative debate over optimal engineering approach; whichever position the legislature does not adopt remains ethically legitimate
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Both testifying engineers and any ethics adjudicating body
constraintclass: Public Policy Engineering Disagreement Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, both engineers and any reviewing ethics body are constrained from treating the losing engineer's position as having been unethical — the post-decision resolution of the debate does not retroactively establish that the engineer whose position was not adopted acted unethically.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: BER Case No. 79-2; NSPE Code provisions on public policy engineering debate
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
temporalscope: After legislative resolution of the dam design question
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.741115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebatePost-DecisionAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative committee hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; two qualified PEs present opposing engineering positions, each supported by voluminous data; the legislature will ultimately resolve the policy question.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Both testifying PEs and ethics adjudicators
obligationclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, both engineers and any reviewing ethics body are obligated to recognize that neither engineer's honest professional judgment was unethical, and to refrain from treating the legislative outcome as an ethical indictment of the engineer whose position was not adopted.
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
temporalscope: Following legislative resolution of the dam design policy question
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dam Design Legislative Debate Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDisagreementPost-DecisionAcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Multi-year public controversy over optimal dam configuration for water supply, flood control, and electric power production resolved by legislative policy determination
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Both Engineers and BER
constraintclass: Public Policy Engineering Disagreement Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: When the state legislature ultimately resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam question through public policy considerations, neither engineer's technically grounded advocacy position may be retroactively characterized as an ethical violation, and the engineer whose efficiency-based recommendation was not adopted must not be ethically indicted for having presented that position.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case Discussion; principle that large public projects may properly reflect both engineering diagnoses and determinations of public policy
sourcetext: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
temporalscope: Post-legislative resolution of the dam configuration question
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.751096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dam Design Legislative Debate — Post-Decision Acceptance
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebatePost-DecisionAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, the State Power Commission PE was required to accept that outcome as legitimate and refrain from continued professional disparagement of the engineer who reached a different conclusion.
casecontext: Post-legislative-decision context following state legislature's resolution of dam configuration question
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that post-legislative-decision, both engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.750637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility — Dam Testimony
type: Dual-AdvocateLegislativePeerCriticismPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Legislative committee hearing on dam configuration bills
balancingwith: Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
balancingwith: Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment Standard
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE each testified before the state legislative committee and each criticized the other's engineering analysis and findings; this mutual criticism is ethically permissible because it is grounded in engineering data and conclusions rather than personal attacks, and neither engineer maliciously or falsely attempts to injure the other's professional reputation.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The dual-advocate permissibility principle is satisfied here because both engineers are expressing engineering opinions grounded in the same physical facts, offering alternative analyses rather than personal attacks, and doing so before a public body bearing responsibility for an important public decision.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
tensionresolution: Mutual criticism is permissible provided it is confined to engineering conclusions and data; the due-restraint requirement of Canon 24 is satisfied by grounding criticism in engineering analysis rather than personalities.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
textreferences: The only Canon which need give us pause is Canon 24 dealing with public criticism of the work of another engineer. But Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.747091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
type: Dual-RetainedLegislativeWitnessMutualPeerCriticismPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative committee hearing where two retained engineers representing opposing parties (state agency vs. private company) mutually criticize each other's technical analyses on the low-dams vs. one-high-dam question.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Both testifying PEs and ethics adjudicators
obligationclass: Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Peer Criticism Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Both the state power commission PE and the private power company PE, and any ethics adjudicating body reviewing their conduct, were obligated to recognize that freely criticizing each other's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee is ethically permissible — not a collegial violation — provided the criticism is data-grounded and professionally conducted.
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative hearing process and any subsequent ethics review
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.737462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition Execution
type: Multi-EngineerConflictingProfessionalViewEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Both the state power commission PE and any reviewing ethics body must recognize that mutual peer criticism between two retained legislative witnesses representing opposing parties is ethically permissible when grounded in technical analysis
casecontext: Legislative hearing; both PEs criticize each other's engineering analysis as retained witnesses for opposing parties
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that both engineers freely criticizing each other's analysis before the legislature does not constitute an ethical violation
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineer-Professional-Criticism-Conduct-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerProfessionalCriticismConductStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (interpretive)
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Standard for Public Criticism of Another Engineer's Work
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Professional Criticism Conduct Standard
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in determining permissible scope of public criticism at hearings
usedincontext: The BER interprets Canon 24's 'due restraint' requirement to mean that public criticism of another engineer must avoid personalities and abuse, and must be grounded in engineering conclusions or alternative analyses — establishing the conduct standard for adversarial expert testimony
version: Derived from Canon 24 interpretation
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.732447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineer 1 testimony (series of low dams) overlaps Engineer 2 testimony (single high dam)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineer Advocate Appearance Before Public Body
type: EngineerAdvocateRoleBeforePublicBodyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the engineer's engagement with the public body as advocate or expert witness
affectedparties: Advocating engineer
affectedparties: Affected public
affectedparties: Client or employer
affectedparties: Opposing engineers
affectedparties: Public body
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected
stateclass: Engineer Advocate Role Before Public Body State
subject: Engineer appearing before courts, commissions, public hearings, and other tribunals to offer expert opinion in support of a position
terminatedby: Conclusion of the public proceeding; public body renders decision
textreferences: Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected
textreferences: We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures
textreferences: this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance
triggeringevent: Engineer retained by client, employer, or acting from public duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion before a public body on a matter of public importance
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.734260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineer_Civic_Service_Obligation_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerCivicServiceObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE / Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Obligation to Participate in Civic and Legislative Affairs
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
sourcetext: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
usedby: Both professional engineers testifying before the legislature
usedincontext: Engineers participate in state legislative hearings on major public infrastructure decisions (water supply, flood control, electric power), fulfilling their professional obligation to contribute technical expertise to civic decision-making
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.728104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineer_Professional_Criticism_Conduct_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerProfessionalCriticismConductStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Public Criticism of Another Engineer's Work
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Professional Criticism Conduct Standard
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
usedby: Both professional engineers at the legislative hearing
usedincontext: Each engineer publicly criticizes the other's engineering analysis and findings at the legislative hearing; the standard governs whether such criticism is ethically permissible and under what conditions
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineer Public Criticism of Peer with Due Restraint
type: ProfessionallyPermissibleInter-EngineerPublicCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During public hearings, proceedings, or other public forums where engineering work is under review
affectedparties: Affected public
affectedparties: Criticizing engineer
affectedparties: Engineer whose work is criticized
affectedparties: Public body
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
stateclass: Professionally Permissible Inter-Engineer Public Criticism State
subject: Engineer offering public criticism of another engineer's work before a public body
terminatedby: Conclusion of the public proceeding or forum
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
textreferences: in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses
triggeringevent: Engineer's duty to client, employer, or public requiring expression of contrary engineering opinion on peer's work
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.734093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineer Public Testimony Role — Legislative Infrastructure Hearing
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyRoleandObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State legislative committee hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills
balancingwith: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both engineers testifying before the state legislative committee on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bear a heightened obligation to perform their role consistently with professional ethics standards, because their technical expertise gives their testimony disproportionate influence on the legislature's policy decisions affecting the public welfare.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the legislative context, engineers' technical testimony shapes public policy decisions that will affect the public for decades; the heightened obligation therefore requires not just truthfulness but also completeness, data support, and professional deportment in peer criticism.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Principle
sourcetext: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
tensionresolution: The public testimony obligation and the loyalty obligation to respective clients are reconciled by the advocacy-objectivity balance principle: engineers may represent their clients' preferred solutions while maintaining technical integrity in how they present and support those solutions.
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.735246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineering-Factual-Basis-Requirement-Standard-Instance
type: EngineeringFactualBasisRequirementStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (interpretive)
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Factual and Empirical Grounding Requirement for Engineering Opinion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineering Factual Basis Requirement Standard
sourcetext: Canon 7—'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Canon 7—'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the legitimacy of differing engineering conclusions on the same factual record
usedincontext: Canon 7's requirement that engineers refrain from publicly expressing opinion unless informed as to the facts is cited to establish that engineering opinion must be grounded in factual knowledge — water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff, etc. — even when those facts admit of differing interpretations
version: Derived from Canon 7 interpretation
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.732781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineering_Factual_Basis_Requirement_Standard_Instance
type: EngineeringFactualBasisRequirementStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE / Professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Factual and Empirical Grounding Requirement for Engineering Testimony
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Factual Basis Requirement Standard
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution
usedby: Both professional engineers testifying before the legislature
usedincontext: Both engineers submit voluminous engineering data to support their competing positions, satisfying the requirement that professional commentary and criticism be grounded in factual engineering analysis
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineering Opinion Indeterminacy — Dam Configuration Cost and Growth Estimates
type: EngineeringOpinionIndeterminacyandEstimate-BasedJudgmentPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Dam configuration cost and benefit analysis presented to state legislature
balancingwith: Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The competing dam configuration opinions of the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE necessarily rest on estimates of indeterminate factors — construction costs by alternative methods, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency trends — such that the engineers are exercising judgment, not reciting known data, and differing conclusions are professionally legitimate.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The indeterminacy of key inputs (cost estimates, growth projections) means that the engineers' opinions are inherently judgment-based, and the legislature must understand this epistemic condition when evaluating competing analyses.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Engineering Opinion Indeterminacy and Estimate-Based Judgment Principle
sourcetext: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
tensionresolution: Objectivity does not require false certainty about indeterminate factors; it requires honest disclosure of the estimative nature of key inputs and honest application of professional judgment to those estimates.
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data
textreferences: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.746799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension — Legislative Committee as Public Body
type: EngineeringPeerCriticismForumExtensiontoPublicBodiesPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State legislative committee hearing on dam configuration bills
balancingwith: Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment Standard
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Although Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press, this limitation does not interfere with the duty of the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE to offer their expert knowledge and criticism of each other's dam analyses to the state legislative committee, which bears responsibility for an act of public importance.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The state legislative committee is a public body bearing responsibility for an act of public importance (water supply, flood control, energy production legislation), and therefore falls within the extended forum for engineering peer criticism under Canon 5 as extended to public hearings and procedures.
invokedby: Canon 24 Peer Critic Engineering Witness
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension to Public Bodies Principle
sourcetext: However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
tensionresolution: The forum extension is bounded by the due-restraint requirement: criticism before public bodies must still be engineering-grounded and avoid personalities, but the forum itself is legitimate.
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals. We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing — Dam Design Alternatives
type: EnvironmentalandInfrastructurePolicySubjectiveBalancingAcknowledgmentPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Legislative choice between low-dam series and single high-dam infrastructure solutions
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The choice between a series of low dams and one high dam for water supply, flood control, and power production involves subjective policy trade-offs that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis alone; both engineers' conclusions are reached in good faith and each is acting ethically regardless of which solution the legislature ultimately selects.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The years-long public debate over the most efficient and economical method confirms that this is not a question with a single technically correct answer; the subjective balancing principle establishes that both engineers' good-faith positions are ethically valid contributions to the policy process.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment Principle
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
tensionresolution: No fundamental tension — the subjective balancing principle and the honest disagreement principle mutually reinforce each other in establishing that both engineers' positions are ethically legitimate.
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.735553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing — Water-Power Complex Multiple Approaches
type: EnvironmentalandInfrastructurePolicySubjectiveBalancingAcknowledgmentPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Water-power complex dam configuration decision
balancingwith: Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: For the water-power complex, there are many approaches all based on sound engineering principles (low dams vs. one high dam), and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect determinations of public policy as well as engineering diagnoses — confirming that the choice between technically sound alternatives involves subjective policy balancing, not a single objectively correct engineering answer.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The water-power complex is a paradigm case of the subjective balancing principle: multiple technically sound approaches exist, the choice among them involves public policy as well as engineering analysis, and engineers who reach different conclusions in good faith are each acting ethically.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: Water-Power Complex Large Project Engineer
principleclass: Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment Principle
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
tensionresolution: Acknowledging policy subjectivity does not relieve engineers of the objectivity obligation; it means that objectivity must be applied to the full range of technically sound options, not used to falsely claim that only one option is correct.
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.747412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Ethics Review Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Evaluate Engineers' Ethical Conduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity — Private Power Company PE Testimony
type: GoodFaithPublicWelfareSinceritySufficiencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Private power company PE's advocacy for single high dam before state legislature
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The private power company PE's testimony that one high dam is more effective and less expensive is ethically sanctioned because it is grounded in genuine engineering analysis, reflecting sincere belief that this solution best serves the public interest in achieving the desired water supply, flood control, and power production results.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The ethics analysis does not require that the high-dam position be objectively correct; it is sufficient that the private company PE sincerely believes, based on engineering analysis, that it serves the public interest in achieving the desired results more effectively and economically.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Principle
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
tensionresolution: Good faith sincerity is demonstrated by the engineering analysis basis for the testimony and the submission of voluminous supporting data.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.735905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity — State Power Commission PE Testimony
type: GoodFaithPublicWelfareSinceritySufficiencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State power commission PE's advocacy for low-dam series before state legislature
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The state power commission PE's testimony that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution is ethically sanctioned because it is grounded in genuine engineering studies conducted by the PE and professional colleagues, reflecting sincere belief that this solution best serves the public interest in water supply, flood control, and power production.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The ethics analysis does not require that the low-dam position be objectively correct; it is sufficient that the state PE sincerely believes, based on engineering studies, that it serves the public interest.
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Principle
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
tensionresolution: Good faith sincerity is demonstrated by the engineering studies basis for the testimony and the submission of voluminous supporting data.
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.735742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Highway Route Engineering Opinion Witness
type: PublicBodyEngineeringOpinionWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'context': 'Highway routing decision involving populated vs. lightly populated areas', 'canon_obligations': ['Canon 5', 'Canon 7', 'Rule 10'], 'opinion_type': 'Engineering judgment integrated with public policy advocacy'}
caseinvolvement: An engineer who presents a point of view on highway routing — either through a populated residential district (efficiency/cost) or through a lightly populated area (public policy) — before a public body, commission, or tribunal, bearing Canon 5 obligations to ground opinion in adequate knowledge and honest conviction.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:10.260641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:10.260641+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_critic_of', 'target': 'Opposing engineering opinion witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Public body or commission'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Body Engineering Opinion Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect'
textreferences: Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals
textreferences: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.732921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Highway Route Engineering Opinion Witness — Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition
type: LargeComplexProjectMultipleSoundEngineeringApproachesRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Engineering Approaches Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The highway route engineering opinion witness must possess the capability to recognize that both the through-residential-district (efficiency/cost) and through-lightly-populated-area (public policy) highway routing approaches represent sound engineering positions, and that an engineer presenting either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
casecontext: Highway routing decision involving trade-off between engineering efficiency (through populated district) and public policy (through lightly populated area at greater cost)
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Presenting a highway routing point of view — whether efficiency-based or public-policy-based — while recognizing the legitimacy of the competing approach
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Highway Route Engineering Opinion Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.742272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Highway Routing Engineering vs. Public Policy Tension
type: EngineeringJudgmentvs.PublicPolicyOverrideState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the planning and public deliberation phase of the highway routing decision
affectedparties: Engineers presenting technical analysis
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public body making routing decision
affectedparties: Residential community
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area.
stateclass: Engineering Judgment vs. Public Policy Override State
subject: Engineers and public body deliberating on highway routing through residential vs. rural area
terminatedby: Final routing decision by the responsible public authority
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area.
triggeringevent: Engineering efficiency analysis recommending residential routing while public policy favors rural routing at greater cost
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.733786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Dam Configuration Legislative Testimony
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Dam configuration analysis presented before state legislative committee
balancingwith: Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE reached different engineering conclusions (low dams vs. one high dam) from the same physical facts (water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff, etc.), and this disagreement is ethically permissible because many engineering problems do not admit of a single correct answer.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the permissibility principle applies because both engineers agreed on the underlying physical facts but reached different conclusions based on their best professional judgment about the application of those facts — a paradigm case of legitimate engineering disagreement.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
tensionresolution: The permissibility of disagreement is bounded by the objectivity obligation: each engineer must ground their differing conclusion in engineering data and honest conviction, not advocacy bias.
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.746944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Low Dams vs. High Dam Engineering Positions
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competing engineering analyses of dam design for water supply, flood control, and electric power production
balancingwith: Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The state power commission PE concludes that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, while the private power company PE concludes that one high dam is more effective and less expensive; both conclusions are grounded in engineering analysis and data, making this a legitimate professional disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineering problems involving large infrastructure trade-offs do not always have a single correct answer; both the low-dam and high-dam positions represent honest professional conclusions from engineering analysis, and neither engineer is acting unethically by reaching a different conclusion than the other.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams. Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
tensionresolution: The honest disagreement principle resolves any apparent tension by establishing that differing conclusions from the same physical facts are normal in engineering practice, provided each engineer has conducted a genuine analysis.
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.734558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Legislative Dam Design Public Policy Open Debate Appropriate Authority Resolution
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDecisionOpenDebateAppropriateAuthorityResolutionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Multi-year public and legislative debate over optimal engineering approach to water supply, flood control, and electric power; the legislature is the appropriate authority to resolve the competing engineering positions
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Both testifying engineers, the state legislature, and any ethics adjudicating body
constraintclass: Public Policy Engineering Decision Open Debate Appropriate Authority Resolution Constraint
constraintstatement: The competing engineering positions on the dam design question — series of low dams versus one high dam — are subject to open public debate before the state legislature, and the ultimate resolution must be made by the legislature as the appropriate public authority; neither engineer nor any ethics body may treat one engineer's professionally grounded position as the exclusive correct answer that forecloses the other's ethical legitimacy.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: BER Case No. 79-2; NSPE Code provisions on public policy engineering decisions
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative deliberation process and after resolution
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.741843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Legislative Debate Initiated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Legislative Debate Initiated → Legislative Hearings Convened
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Legislative Hearing Engineer Civic Service Informed Policy Facilitation
type: InformedPolicyDecisionFacilitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislature deliberating on major public infrastructure decisions involving water supply, flood control, and electric power; both engineers submit voluminous data to facilitate informed legislative decision-making
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Both testifying engineers
constraintclass: Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Both engineers testifying before the state legislative committee must structure and present their testimony and data in a manner that facilitates an informed policy decision by the legislature — including presenting material technical findings, trade-offs, and the basis for their competing conclusions — prohibiting presentation that, while technically accurate in individual findings, fails to provide the legislature with the complete information necessary to make an informed policy choice on the dam design question.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions; Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
sourcetext: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
temporalscope: During legislative hearing testimony and data submission
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.742097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity — Dam Configuration Competing Analyses
type: LegislativeHearingTechnicalTestimonyObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State legislative committee hearing on low-dam versus high-dam bills
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE are obligated to ground their legislative testimony in objective engineering analysis and voluminous supporting data — including factual agreement on water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, and runoff — so that the legislature receives technically reliable input for its policy decision on dam configuration.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The objectivity obligation applies equally to both the public agency engineer and the private company engineer; neither is exempt from the requirement to ground testimony in engineering data simply because they represent an advocacy position.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
sourcetext: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
tensionresolution: Advocacy of a position is permissible (Rule 10), but advocacy must be grounded in objective engineering analysis — the engineer is an advocate for a technically supported position, not a hired gun for a predetermined conclusion.
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.746634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Legislative Hearings Convened
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Low-Dams vs. High-Dam Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy
type: Multi-EngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementMutualEthicalLegitimacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Two engineers reach opposing conclusions on the optimal dam design approach for the same water supply, flood control, and electric power objectives
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Both testifying engineers and any ethics adjudicating body
constraintclass: Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
constraintstatement: Neither the state power commission PE's low-dams position nor the private power company PE's high-dam position is inherently unethical solely by virtue of the disagreement between them — both positions are professionally grounded and represent legitimate engineering conclusions from the same set of facts, and neither engineer may be characterized as acting unethically merely because the other engineer reached a different conclusion.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, 79-2; NSPE Code provisions on honest differences of professional opinion
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative debate and any subsequent ethics review
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Loyalty to Client Within Ethical Limits — Dual Legislative Advocacy
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Legislative advocacy for competing dam design solutions on behalf of respective clients
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Each engineer serves their respective client's interests (state power commission preferring low dams; private power company preferring one high dam) faithfully by presenting and defending their client's preferred engineering solution before the legislature, while remaining within the bounds of professional ethics by grounding testimony in engineering analysis and data.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Loyalty to client in the legislative testimony context means presenting the client's preferred engineering position with full professional support, including voluminous data and peer criticism, but not exceeding what the engineering evidence supports.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
tensionresolution: Loyalty and objectivity are reconciled by the advocacy-objectivity balance principle: faithful representation of client interests is ethically permissible when grounded in genuine engineering analysis.
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Model-Law-Section-2d-Definition-of-Engineering
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NCEES / Model Law drafters
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Model Law — Section 2(d): Definition of Engineering Practice
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Legal Resource
sourcetext: The practice of engineering is 'the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to ... creative work. . . .' (Section 2 (d), Model Law).
textreferences: The practice of engineering is 'the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to ... creative work. . . .' (Section 2 (d), Model Law).
usedby: Board of Ethical Review to ground the nature of engineering practice as opinion-based and judgment-dependent
usedincontext: Cited to define the practice of engineering as the application of special knowledge of mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to creative work, supporting the conclusion that engineering judgment inherently involves opinion and creative application rather than singular correct answers
version: Version cited in BER case
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.732312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Multi-Approach Water-Power Complex Engineering Problem
type: LegitimateInter-EngineerPublicDisagreementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the analysis and public deliberation of the water-power complex project
affectedparties: Affected public
affectedparties: Multiple qualified engineers
affectedparties: Public body responsible for decision
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles
stateclass: Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
subject: Engineers analyzing a complex water-power project with multiple technically valid approaches
terminatedby: Final adoption of one approach by the responsible public body
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts
textreferences: in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles
triggeringevent: Recognition that a large, complicated engineering problem admits multiple sound engineering approaches
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.733605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Multi-Year Public Infrastructure Policy Controversy
type: PublicControversyEngineeringDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Several years prior to and including the legislative committee hearings
affectedparties: Both testifying engineers
affectedparties: General citizenry
affectedparties: Private power company
affectedparties: State legislature
affectedparties: State power commission
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
stateclass: Public Controversy Engineering Decision State
subject: Sustained public and legislative debate over the optimal engineering approach to water supply, flood control, and electric power production
terminatedby: Legislative resolution of the competing proposals
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
triggeringevent: Pending legislative bills and ongoing public debate about competing infrastructure approaches
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.731767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
type: ProfessionallyPermissibleInter-EngineerPublicCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the legislative committee hearings, concurrent with testimony submission
affectedparties: Engineer representing private power company
affectedparties: Engineer representing state power commission
affectedparties: State legislature and committee
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
stateclass: Professionally Permissible Inter-Engineer Public Criticism State
subject: Both engineers openly criticizing each other's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee
terminatedby: Conclusion of legislative hearings
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
triggeringevent: Submission of competing engineering analyses with contradictory conclusions by each engineer
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.731086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Mutual Legislative Witness Peer Criticism Permissibility Recognition
type: Dual-RetainedLegislativeWitnessMutualPeerCriticismPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis; the permissibility constraint establishes that this mutual criticism is ethically legitimate in the legislative advocacy context
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Both testifying engineers and any ethics adjudicating body reviewing their conduct
constraintclass: Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Peer Criticism Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: The mutual criticism of each other's engineering analysis and findings by the two retained legislative witnesses does not constitute an ethics violation — provided the criticism is grounded in engineering data, avoids personalities and abuse, and is not malicious or false — and any ethics body reviewing this conduct is constrained from characterizing such criticism as a violation of professional ethics provisions.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canons 5, 7, 24; NSPE Rule 10; Model Law Section 2(d); BER legislative testimony case precedent
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
temporalscope: During and after legislative hearing; applicable to any subsequent ethics review
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers (historical)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
textreferences: Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals.
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment
textreferences: The only Canon which need give us pause is Canon 24 dealing with public criticism of the work of another engineer.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in deliberating on engineer's right to offer contrary expert opinion at public hearings
usedincontext: Canon 5, Canon 7, and Canon 24 are cited as the operative ethical framework governing engineer expert opinion testimony, public expression of engineering views, and public criticism of another engineer's work
version: Historical version (now superseded)
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.730646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-Rule-10
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 10 (historical)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing whether an engineer may advocate a contrary position at a public hearing
usedincontext: Rule 10 is cited to establish that engineers may serve as advocates for a position, implying that contrary engineering conclusions are professionally expected and permissible
version: Historical version (now superseded)
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.732176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Legislative_Testimony
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
usedby: Both professional engineers testifying before the state legislature
usedincontext: Governs the ethical conduct of professional engineers testifying before a state legislative committee, including obligations of honesty, objectivity, and professional criticism
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Objectivity Obligation — Data-Grounded Legislative Testimony
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Technical testimony before state legislature on dam design alternatives
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Both engineers are obligated to ground their legislative testimony in objective engineering analysis rather than pure client advocacy; the submission of voluminous engineering data by each witness is the primary indicator that both are meeting their objectivity obligation in the legislative hearing context.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in legislative testimony requires that engineering conclusions be derived from engineering studies and analysis, not merely asserted; the data submission requirement operationalizes objectivity in this context.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
tensionresolution: Objectivity and loyalty to respective clients are reconciled by the principle that engineers may advocate for their clients' preferred solutions provided the advocacy is grounded in genuine engineering analysis.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.736073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private corporation', 'interest': 'Electric power production, water infrastructure'}
caseinvolvement: Private industry entity whose engineering position (one high dam) is represented before the state legislature; retains the testifying PE.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'stakeholder_in', 'target': 'State Legislature Hearings'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.730338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company Engineer Legislative Testimony
type: LegislativeTestimonyCompetingPrincipalRepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the legislative committee hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power bills
affectedparties: Engineer representing private power company
affectedparties: Engineer representing state power commission
affectedparties: General citizenry
affectedparties: State legislature and committee
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
stateclass: Legislative Testimony Competing Principal Representation State
subject: Professional engineer representing a private power company testifying before the legislative committee
terminatedby: Conclusion of legislative hearings
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
triggeringevent: Legislative committee calling hearings to receive comments and recommendations on competing proposals
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.730945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application
type: PeerReviewAdverseFindingNon-MalicePresumptionApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the low-dam series approach is less effective and more expensive — does not satisfy the malicious intent prerequisite required to establish a violation of the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation
casecontext: Legislative hearing; private power company PE criticizes low-dam series analysis as less effective and more expensive than one high dam
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis and findings on technical grounds without malicious intent
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.744911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Adverse Technical Conclusion Non-Malicious Non-Violation
type: AdverseTechnicalConclusionMaliciousIntentNon-PresumptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private power company PE criticizes the low-dams engineering analysis as less effective and more expensive; this criticism is grounded in engineering data and does not constitute malicious injury to the opposing engineer's reputation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Ethics adjudicating body reviewing private power company PE's criticism of low-dams approach
constraintclass: Adverse Technical Conclusion Malicious Intent Non-Presumption Constraint
constraintstatement: The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's low-dams engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the series-of-low-dams approach is less effective and more expensive — cannot alone constitute a violation of ethics provisions prohibiting injury to another engineer's professional reputation; malicious or false intent is a necessary predicate that must be affirmatively shown and cannot be presumed from the adverse technical conclusion alone.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section 12; BER precedent on adverse technical conclusion non-presumption of malice
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: Applicable to any ethics review of the legislative testimony
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
type: AdverseTechnicalFindingMaliciousIntentPrerequisiteNon-SatisfactionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private power company PE criticizes the state power commission PE's analysis and findings before the legislative committee, implicitly challenging the correctness of the low-dams engineering position.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE and ethics adjudicators
obligationclass: Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Prerequisite Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the series-of-low-dams approach is less effective and more expensive — does not constitute reputation-injuring conduct prohibited by professional codes, because no malicious or false intent is present; the adverse finding flows from good-faith engineering analysis.
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During and after legislative testimony
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Constraint
type: Inter-EngineerPublicPolicyCriticismProfessionalDeportmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private power company PE publicly criticizing state power commission PE's engineering analysis at state legislative hearing on dam configuration
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Private Power Company PE
constraintclass: Inter-Engineer Public Policy Criticism Professional Deportment Constraint
constraintstatement: The Private Power Company PE, in criticizing the State Power Commission PE's low-dams engineering analysis before the state legislative committee, was constrained by Canon 24's due-restraint requirement to avoid personalities and abuse, and to base criticism on engineering conclusions and the application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses — not on personal attacks on the opposing engineer's competence or motives.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 24; BER interpretation that due restraint means avoiding personalities and abuse while grounding criticism in engineering data
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony and any public criticism of the opposing engineer's work
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
textreferences: We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.751984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer testifying before state legislative committee on major public infrastructure decision involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Private Power Company PE
constraintclass: Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Testimony Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: The Private Power Company PE was not constrained by Canon 24's forum-preference language (engineering society gatherings and engineering press) from testifying before the state legislative committee, because Canon 24's forum implication must not be interpreted as interfering with the engineer's duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 24; Canon 5; BER interpretation extending Canon 5 testimony obligations to public hearings and procedures
sourcetext: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony proceedings
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press.
textreferences: However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.752300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration
type: RetainedLegislativeWitnessClient-AdvocacyBoundarySelf-CalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Retained Legislative Witness Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE was required to calibrate the permissible boundary between legitimate advocacy for the one-high-dam position and impermissible conduct such as misrepresentation or personal attacks on the opposing engineer
casecontext: Legislative hearing; private power company PE advocates for one high dam while criticizing low-dam series analysis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Freely criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis and findings while remaining within ethical boundaries of professional deportment
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.745943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancedAdvisoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Legislative hearing on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; the choice between one high dam and a series of low dams involves trade-offs across multiple public goods.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: The private power company PE was obligated to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, presenting the trade-offs between the high-dam and low-dams approaches completely and objectively so that the legislature could make an informed policy decision.
sourcetext: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
temporalscope: During legislative testimony
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Execution
type: CompetingPublicGoodsConflictRecognitionandAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE was required to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in legislative testimony, ensuring the committee understood the tradeoffs between competing public welfare objectives
casecontext: Legislative hearing on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying about engineering analysis addressing water supply, flood control, and electric power production objectives simultaneously
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.744383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory at Legislature
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The legislative debate involves multiple competing public goods — water supply, flood control, and electric power — and the engineer's testimony must address these trade-offs honestly
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the private power company
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: The private power company PE must acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, and must not distort, suppress, or selectively omit findings that bear on the trade-offs between these competing goods in a manner that misleads the legislative committee.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code objectivity provisions; BER Case 98-5 on competing public goods non-distortion
sourcetext: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power.
temporalscope: During legislative hearing testimony and data submission
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.741404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Data Submission Completeness
type: RetainedLegislativeWitnessEngineerData-SubmissionCompletenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative committee hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills; PE submits engineering data supporting one high dam.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Retained Legislative Witness Engineer Data-Submission Completeness Obligation
obligationstatement: The private power company PE was obligated to submit voluminous and complete engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the one-high-dam position, ensuring the legislature had the full evidentiary basis for the engineering conclusion.
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
temporalscope: At the time of legislative testimony
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.737066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Data Submission Completeness Execution
type: LegislativeHearingVoluminousDataSubmissionCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Legislative Hearing Voluminous Data Submission Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE compiled and submitted voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the one-high-dam position, fulfilling the data-submission completeness obligation
casecontext: Legislative hearing; PE submits engineering analysis supporting one high dam as more effective and less expensive solution
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Submission of voluminous engineering data supporting the one-high-dam engineering position to the state legislative committee
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.742915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded High-Dam Legislative Opinion
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer submits voluminous engineering data supporting the high-dam position, satisfying the factual-grounding requirement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the private power company
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: The private power company PE's advocacy for the one-high-dam approach must be grounded in established facts and completed engineering analysis — the engineer may not publicly express the high-dam position before the legislature unless that position is founded on completed professional analysis.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 7 (refrain from publicly expressing opinion unless informed as to the facts); Engineering Factual Basis Requirement Standard
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
temporalscope: At and prior to legislative testimony
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.739551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded High-Dam Opinion
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE submits voluminous engineering data supporting the one-high-dam conclusion.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: The private power company PE was obligated to ground the one-high-dam engineering position in established facts and completed professional analysis, submitting complete engineering data to the legislative committee rather than unsupported advocacy.
sourcetext: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
temporalscope: At the time of legislative testimony and data submission
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.736788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded Legislative Opinion Constraint
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private power company PE testifying before state legislative committee on water-power complex dam configuration
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Private Power Company PE
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: The Private Power Company PE was constrained by Canon 7 to refrain from publicly expressing the high-dam engineering opinion before the legislative committee unless informed as to the facts relating thereto — requiring that the opinion be grounded in established engineering data including water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, and other relevant physical facts.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 7; BER recognition that Canon 7 requires engineers to be informed as to the facts before publicly expressing technical opinions
sourcetext: Canon 7-'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
temporalscope: Prior to and during legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Canon 7-'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.752839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyforCivicAdvocacyEvaluationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private power company PE testifies before legislative committee that engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution for water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's testimony
obligationclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Evaluation Obligation
obligationstatement: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the one-high-dam solution best served the public interest; the PE need not be proven technically correct, and correctness of the engineering position is not germane to the ethical evaluation.
sourcetext: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
temporalscope: At any point of ethics review following the legislative testimony
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Recognition
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyCivicAdvocacyEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Evaluation Capability
capabilitystatement: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the one-high-dam position served the public interest, without requiring proof that the position was objectively correct
casecontext: Legislative hearing; ethics review of whether the PE's advocacy testimony was ethically permissible
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Testifying sincerely that engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Legislative Advocacy
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyCivicAdvocacyCorrectnessNon-RequirementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The private power company PE sincerely advocates for the high-dam approach based on engineering analysis; the ultimate legislative resolution of the debate does not retroactively render the advocacy unethical
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Ethics adjudicating body reviewing private power company PE's legislative testimony
constraintclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint
constraintstatement: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's legislative testimony are constrained from conditioning the permissibility of the high-dam advocacy on the ultimate correctness of that engineering position — it is sufficient that the engineer sincerely believed the one-high-dam approach was more effective and less expensive and was acting in the public interest.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code civic advocacy provisions; BER precedent on good faith sincerity sufficiency
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
temporalscope: Applicable to any post-hearing ethics review
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
type: EngineeringAdvocateRoleHonestConvictionPrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private power company PE serving as retained advocate for one-high-dam position before state legislative committee
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Private Power Company PE
constraintclass: Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: The Private Power Company PE's advocacy for one high dam before the state legislative committee was constrained to reflect the engineer's honest professional conviction — the engineer could not ethically advocate the high-dam position unless genuinely convinced of its technical soundness, as Rule 10's recognition of the advocate role presupposes that advocacy reflects sincere professional judgment.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Rule 10; Canon 5; Canon 7; BER recognition that the advocate role presupposes honest conviction
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony proceedings
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.752572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Honest Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition
type: HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative committee hearing where the private power company PE publicly challenges the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and advocates for the one-high-dam alternative.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE and ethics adjudicators
obligationclass: Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: The private power company PE's public expression of disagreement with the state power commission PE's low-dams engineering conclusion — by proposing the alternative one-high-dam approach and contributing to open legislative debate — is ethically permissible and consistent with the NSPE Code, provided the statements are honest and grounded in professional judgment.
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During and after legislative testimony
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Two qualified PEs reach opposing engineering conclusions on the most efficient and economical method for water supply, flood control, and electric power production; the disagreement is genuine and data-supported on both sides.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's conduct
obligationclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Any ethics body reviewing the private power company PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (one high dam) from the same underlying engineering problem as the state power commission PE (series of low dams) does not constitute an ethical violation — honest professional disagreement between qualified engineers is a normal and legitimate feature of engineering practice.
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
temporalscope: At any point of ethics review following the legislative testimony
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.737750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation Recognition
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementBetweenQualifiedEngineersNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Ethics bodies reviewing the private power company PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (one high dam) from the same facts as the state power commission PE (low dams) constitutes honest technical disagreement, not an ethical violation
casecontext: Both PEs analyze the same water supply, flood control, and power generation problem and reach different engineering conclusions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Reaching a different engineering conclusion from the same water resource facts as the opposing PE
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.742790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Indeterminate Factor Estimate Epistemic Humility
type: IndeterminateFactorEstimate-BasedOpinionEpistemicHumilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer testifying before state legislative committee on water-power complex dam configuration based on estimated indeterminate factors
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Private Power Company PE
constraintclass: Indeterminate Factor Estimate-Based Opinion Epistemic Humility Constraint
constraintstatement: The Private Power Company PE, in testifying that one high dam is more effective and less expensive, was constrained to acknowledge that this opinion necessarily rested on estimates of indeterminate factors — including construction cost comparisons, population growth projections, economic development trends, and future equipment efficiency — and could not present this judgment as mathematically certain or uniquely correct.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 5; Canon 7; BER recognition that engineers must base opinions on estimates of indeterminate factors
sourcetext: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.751706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Inter-Engineer Criticism Professional Deportment
type: Inter-EngineerPublicPolicyCriticismProfessionalDeportmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis and findings; the deportment constraint governs the manner in which such criticism is permissibly offered
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the private power company
constraintclass: Inter-Engineer Public Policy Criticism Professional Deportment Constraint
constraintstatement: The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee must be offered at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities, abuse, and malicious or false attacks — and must be grounded in engineering conclusions and data rather than personal disparagement.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 24 (due restraint); NSPE Code Section 12; BER Case Nos. 63-6 and 65-9
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During legislative hearing testimony and cross-criticism of opposing engineer
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Client Affiliation Disclosure
type: LegislativeTestimonyRetainedEngineerClientAffiliationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer explicitly identified as 'representing a private power company' — the disclosure obligation is satisfied on the facts of this case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the private power company
constraintclass: Legislative Testimony Retained Engineer Client Affiliation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: The private power company PE must clearly disclose to the legislative committee that the testimony is offered on behalf of the private power company as a retained witness — the engineer may not present the high-dam advocacy in a manner that obscures the client relationship and implies independent expert status.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code non-deception provisions; Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies
temporalscope: At the outset of and throughout legislative testimony
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.741699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony NSPE Code Conformance
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; engineer retained by private power company advocates for one high dam
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the private power company
constraintclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: The private power company PE's testimony before the legislative committee must conform fully to the NSPE Code of Ethics — including honesty, objectivity, factual grounding, and avoidance of misleading selectivity — regardless of the advocacy role played on behalf of the company.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canons of Ethics (Canons 5, 7, 24); NSPE Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 10
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative hearing testimony and data submission process
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.739272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislature hearings on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE represents private power company's preferred solution of one high dam.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Obligation
obligationstatement: The private power company PE was obligated to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, grounding testimony in engineering analysis rather than pure client advocacy, and presenting the one-high-dam position with objectivity and professional integrity.
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
temporalscope: During and throughout the legislative committee hearing testimony
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.736514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity Conformance
type: NSPECodePublicTestimonyConformanceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE was required to self-assess whether testimony before the state legislative committee conformed to NSPE Code obligations of objectivity and truthfulness
casecontext: Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power bills; PE testifies as retained witness for private power company
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before the legislative committee that engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.742534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
type: PrivateCompanyLegislativeHearingWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'affiliation': 'Private Power Company', 'specialty': 'Water supply, flood control, and power infrastructure engineering', 'testimony_position': 'Single high dam as optimal and more economical solution'}
caseinvolvement: Testified before the state legislative committee that his engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution; submitted voluminous engineering data and criticized the opposing engineer's analysis.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_adversary', 'target': 'State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Private Power Company'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'State Legislature Committee'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Private Company Legislative Hearing Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.728731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
type: EngineeringOpinionEstimate-BasedIndeterminacyHonestAcknowledgmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private Power Company PE testified before the state legislative committee on water supply, flood control, and electric power production, advocating for one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Honest Acknowledgment Obligation
obligationstatement: The Private Power Company PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee that one high dam is more effective and less expensive, was obligated to acknowledge that this conclusion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency trends, rather than presenting the conclusion as settled engineering fact.
sourcetext: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected
textreferences: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.747979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Single-Answer Recognition
type: Multi-EngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementMutualEthicalLegitimacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE and private power company PE each testified before a state legislative committee advocating competing dam configurations for a water-power complex
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Private Power Company PE
constraintclass: Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
constraintstatement: The Private Power Company PE's advocacy for one high dam could not be characterized as incorrect or unethical solely because the State Power Commission PE reached a different technically grounded conclusion (series of low dams), as both approaches were based on sound engineering principles applied to the same complex water-power problem.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case Discussion; NSPE Canons 5, 7; BER recognition that large complex engineering problems admit multiple sound approaches
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony and ethics review proceedings
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.751421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
type: Multi-EngineerConflictingProfessionalViewEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE and any reviewing ethics body must recognize that mutual peer criticism between two retained legislative witnesses representing opposing parties is ethically permissible when grounded in technical analysis
casecontext: Legislative hearing; private power company PE criticizes state power commission PE's low-dam analysis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that freely criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis before the legislature does not constitute an ethical violation
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE NSPE Code Legislative Testimony Conformance
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private power company PE testifying before state legislative committee on major public infrastructure decision
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Private Power Company PE
constraintclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: The Private Power Company PE was constrained to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — including Canon 5's requirement that opinion be founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction, Canon 7's requirement of factual grounding, and Canon 24's due-restraint requirement — prohibiting testimony that was selective in a deceptive manner, factually unsupported, or structured to mislead the legislative body.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canons 5, 7, 24; Rule 10; Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
sourcetext: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony proceedings
textreferences: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
textreferences: Canon 7-'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
type: PublicInterestPeerCritiqueProfessionalDeportmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Legislative committee hearing where both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis and findings on the low-dams vs. one-high-dam question.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment Obligation
obligationstatement: The private power company PE was obligated, when criticizing the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee, to maintain a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personal attacks, grounding criticism in engineering data and conclusions, and offering alternative analyses rather than abusive characterizations.
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During legislative testimony when criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.737332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment Execution
type: PublicInterestEngineeringPeerCritiqueHigh-LevelProfessionalDeportmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Engineering Peer Critique High-Level Professional Deportment Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE was required to criticize the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee with high-level professional deportment, avoiding personalities and basing criticism on engineering conclusions
casecontext: Legislative hearing; private power company PE criticizes low-dam series analysis while advocating for one high dam
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Freely criticizing the analysis and findings of the opposing engineer before the legislative committee
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Retained Witness Objectivity Maintenance
type: ExpertWitnessNon-AdvocateObjectivityinRegulatoryTestimonyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Non-Advocate Objectivity in Regulatory Testimony Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE, as a retained witness before the legislative committee, was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions independent of the private power company's advocacy interests, maintaining objectivity while presenting the one-high-dam position
casecontext: Legislative hearing; PE testifies as retained witness for private power company on water resource infrastructure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying based on engineering analysis rather than purely on the private power company's commercial interests
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.745270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Permissibility Recognition
type: Same-FactsDifferent-ConclusionsEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE and reviewing ethics bodies must recognize that reaching a different engineering conclusion (one high dam) from the same water resource facts as the state power commission PE (low dams) is ethically permissible and does not imply misconduct
casecontext: Both PEs analyze the same water supply, flood control, and power generation problem and reach different engineering conclusions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Reaching the one-high-dam conclusion from the same set of water resource engineering facts analyzed by the opposing PE
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.744657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Technical Fact Command for Legislative Testimony
type: TechnicalFactCommandandReportingReadinessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technical Fact Command and Reporting Readiness Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE was required to be fully in command of all relevant engineering facts and data before delivering legislative testimony supporting the one-high-dam position, ensuring the technical basis could withstand scrutiny from the opposing PE and the legislative committee
casecontext: Legislative hearing; PE must command all engineering facts to support testimony and withstand peer criticism
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Submitting voluminous engineering data in support of the one-high-dam position before the legislative committee
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.746467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Voluminous Data Submission Completeness
type: RetainedLegislativeWitnessDataCompletenessandFactualGroundingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer satisfies this constraint by submitting voluminous engineering data; the constraint is met on the facts of this case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the private power company
constraintclass: Retained Legislative Witness Data Completeness and Factual Grounding Constraint
constraintstatement: The private power company PE must submit complete and voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the high-dam position — selective or incomplete data submission that misleads the legislature about the engineering basis for the position is prohibited.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 7; NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
temporalscope: During legislative hearing data submission
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.739868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE Water Resource Multi-Criteria Analysis
type: WaterResourceInfrastructureMulti-CriteriaEngineeringAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Engineering Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: The private power company PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis supporting the one-high-dam position across water supply, flood control, and electric power production dimensions
casecontext: Engineering analysis of water supply, flood control, and electric power production alternatives for state legislative consideration
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Conducting engineering analysis concluding that one high dam is a more effective and less expensive solution producing the same results
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.746213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
type: Canon24Due-RestraintPeerCriticismPersonality-AvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Power Commission PE and Private Power Company PE each freely criticized the other's analysis and findings before the state legislative committee on dam configuration.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Personality-Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: The Private Power Company PE, in criticizing the State Power Commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or data applications, and offering alternative conclusions (one high dam) rather than personal attacks.
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.748518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference Self-Application
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Canon 24 Forum Limitation Legislative Duty Non-Interference Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The Private Power Company PE was required to recognize that Canon 24's forum preference for engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not prohibit — and should not be interpreted as interfering with — the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer must navigate Canon 24 forum limitation language while fulfilling duty to public body
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before the state legislative committee and offering technical criticism of the competing engineering analysis without treating Canon 24 as a prohibition on such public body testimony
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private Power Company PE testified and offered peer criticism before the state legislative committee, a public body rather than an engineering society or press forum.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Duty Obligation
obligationstatement: The Private Power Company PE was obligated to recognize that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not interfere with the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision, and accordingly to testify and criticize the opposing analysis before the legislature.
sourcetext: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.748642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Competing Public Goods Balanced Legislative Testimony
type: CompetingPublicGoodsWaterSupplyFloodControlPowerProductionBalancedTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private Power Company PE testified before the state legislative committee on a water-power complex project serving water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Water Supply Flood Control Power Production Balanced Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: The Private Power Company PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee on the dam configuration question, was obligated to present testimony that acknowledged the multi-dimensional public welfare implications — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — of the one high dam approach, rather than presenting testimony that optimized for only one public good.
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
type: EngineeringOpinionEstimate-BasedIndeterminacyAcknowledgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment Capability
capabilitystatement: The Private Power Company PE was required to possess the capability to acknowledge that the one-high-dam recommendation rested on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost comparisons, population growth, and economic development projections, and to communicate this epistemic uncertainty honestly to the legislative committee.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer testifying for private power company position favoring one high dam
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before the state legislative committee that one high dam is more effective and less expensive, while recognizing that such conclusions are grounded in estimated rather than mathematically certain factors
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
textreferences: the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
type: LegislativeHearingEngineeringAdvocateRoleHonestConvictionPrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Private Power Company PE served as an advocate for the private power company's preferred engineering solution (one high dam) before the state legislative committee.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Legislative Hearing Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: The Private Power Company PE, in advocating before the state legislative committee for one high dam, was obligated to ensure that this advocacy position was grounded in honest conviction based on adequate professional knowledge and analysis, not merely in the client's preferred outcome.
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.748260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite Self-Verification
type: EngineeringAdvocateHonestConvictionPrerequisiteSelf-VerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Advocate Honest Conviction Prerequisite Self-Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: The Private Power Company PE was required to verify, before advocating for the one-high-dam position before the legislative committee, that this advocacy position reflected genuine honest professional conviction rather than mere client instruction.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer serving as retained advocate for private power company position
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Advocacy for one-high-dam position before state legislative committee grounded in sincere professional engineering judgment
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.729078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment
type: NSPECodePublicTestimonyConformanceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The Private Power Company PE was required to self-assess whether the manner, content, and framing of legislative testimony on the one-high-dam position conformed to the NSPE Code of Ethics, including obligations to be objective and truthful and to serve the public interest.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer testifying as retained witness for private power company
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before state legislative committee in a manner consistent with NSPE Code obligations including Canon 5, Canon 7, and Canon 24
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
textreferences: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
textreferences: Canon 7- 'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.729519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment
type: PublicInterestEngineeringPeerCritiqueHigh-LevelProfessionalDeportmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Engineering Peer Critique High-Level Professional Deportment Capability
capabilitystatement: The Private Power Company PE was required to criticize the state power commission PE's engineering analysis before the legislative committee at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions and data, and offering alternative conclusions rather than personal attacks.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer criticizing opposing engineer's analysis before state legislature
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Offering technical criticism of the series-of-low-dams engineering analysis before the state legislative committee with due restraint per Canon 24
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.729901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Private Power Company PE — Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition
type: Same-FactsDifferent-ConclusionsEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The Private Power Company PE was required to recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (one high dam) from the same physical facts as the state power commission PE (series of low dams) is ethically permissible and does not imply that either engineer acted unethically or incompetently.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; both engineers working from same physical fact base but reaching different engineering conclusions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Presenting the one-high-dam engineering conclusion before the state legislative committee based on the same underlying physical facts as the opposing engineer
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.750400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Professional Reputations Publicly Contested
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public-Safety-Standards-Hearing-Participation-Framework-Instance
type: PublicSafetyStandardsHearingParticipationFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (interpretive)
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Framework for Engineer Participation in Public Hearings and Proceedings
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:16:29.880807+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
sourcetext: We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
textreferences: This should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in resolving whether engineer may testify at public hearing contrary to another engineer's conclusions
usedincontext: The BER extends Canon 5's testimony provisions to public hearings and procedures, establishing that engineers have a duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance, even when this involves criticizing another engineer's work
version: Derived from Canon 5 extension and Canon 24 interpretation
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.732613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment — Canon 24 Due Restraint in Legislative Testimony
type: PublicInterestPeerCritiqueDeportmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public criticism of competing dam engineering analyses before state legislative committee
balancingwith: Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Canon 24's due-restraint requirement means that engineering witnesses criticizing each other's dam analyses before the state legislature must avoid personalities and abuse, ground criticism in engineering conclusions or application of engineering data, and offer alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Due restraint operationalizes as a deportment standard: criticism must be engineering-grounded and alternative-analysis-based, not personality-based or abusive, even in an adversarial legislative advocacy context.
invokedby: Canon 24 Peer Critic Engineering Witness
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment Standard
sourcetext: We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
tensionresolution: Due restraint does not prohibit public peer criticism; it channels it into engineering-grounded form, permitting robust technical disagreement while prohibiting personal attacks.
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.747230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment — Mutual Legislative Criticism
type: PublicInterestPeerCritiqueDeportmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Mutual criticism of competing engineering analyses before the state legislature committee
balancingwith: Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Principle
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Each engineer freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other before the state legislative committee; this mutual criticism is ethically permissible because it is grounded in engineering data and conclusions rather than personal attacks, serving the legislature's need for adversarial technical scrutiny of competing proposals.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The deportment standard requires that legislative peer criticism be grounded in engineering conclusions and data rather than personalities or abuse; the case indicates both engineers submitted voluminous engineering data, suggesting the criticism was substantively grounded and therefore within ethical bounds.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment Standard
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
tensionresolution: The deportment standard is satisfied when criticism is data-grounded and directed at analysis and findings rather than personal character; the case description indicates both engineers criticized 'the analysis and findings of the other,' suggesting compliance with this standard.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.735059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution — Dam Design Legislative Hearing
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebateOpenResolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State legislature hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The question of whether a series of low dams or one high dam is the most efficient and economical solution is a legitimate engineering policy debate that has been ongoing for years among the legislature and citizenry; both engineers' positions are ethically valid contributions to that open debate, and the legislature — not either engineer — is the appropriate authority to resolve it.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this legislative context, the open-resolution principle means that neither the state PE nor the private company PE is ethically obligated to defer to the other's conclusion; the legislature is the proper decision-making authority and both engineers serve the public interest by presenting their competing analyses.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
tensionresolution: No tension requiring resolution — both engineers' participation in open legislative debate is affirmatively sanctioned by the principle that public engineering debates must be resolved by appropriate public authority through open deliberation.
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.734407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution — Legislature as Proper Decision Authority
type: PublicPolicyEngineeringDebateOpenResolutionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State legislative committee decision on dam configuration bills
balancingwith: Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The competing dam configuration analyses (low dams vs. one high dam) are legitimately subject to open public debate before the state legislative committee, and the legislature — not either engineer — is the appropriate authority to resolve which technically sound approach will be adopted; both engineers participate in good faith in this debate.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The legislature bears responsibility for the public decision; the engineers' role is to provide expert input to inform that decision, not to determine it — confirming that open public debate before the appropriate public authority is the proper resolution mechanism for competing engineering positions on public infrastructure.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
invokedby: State Legislature Committee
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
sourcetext: public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance
tensionresolution: Open debate before the legislature is the proper resolution mechanism; engineers participate by providing objective, grounded testimony and criticism, and the legislature exercises public policy judgment to choose among technically sound alternatives.
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.747568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency — Highway Routing Illustration
type: PublicPolicyOverrideofPureEngineeringEfficiencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Dam configuration selection for water-power complex
appliedto: Highway route selection decision involving populated vs. lightly populated areas
balancingwith: Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The case text illustrates that engineering judgment optimizing solely for efficiency and cost might route a highway through a heavily populated residential district, but public policy may legitimately dictate routing through a lightly populated area at greater cost and less efficiency — and an engineer presenting either point of view is not incorrect.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: This principle applies to the dam case by analogy: the choice between low dams and one high dam may properly reflect public policy considerations beyond pure engineering efficiency, and both engineers presenting their respective technically sound approaches are acting correctly.
invokedby: Highway Route Engineering Opinion Witness
invokedby: Water-Power Complex Large Project Engineer
principleclass: Public Policy Override of Pure Engineering Efficiency Principle
sourcetext: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
tensionresolution: Public policy considerations legitimately supplement engineering efficiency analysis on large public projects; the engineer's role is to present technically sound options, not to insist that only the efficiency-optimized solution is correct.
textreferences: Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.728929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public_Safety_Standards_Hearing_Participation_Framework_Instance
type: PublicSafetyStandardsHearingParticipationFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Framework for Engineer Participation in Government Legislative Hearings
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
sourcetext: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals
usedby: Both professional engineers called to testify at legislative hearings
usedincontext: Governs the procedural and normative conditions under which engineers may participate as technical witnesses before a state legislative committee on matters of water supply, flood control, and electric power
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Public Trust In Expertise Strained
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Publicly Criticize Opposing Analysis
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Publicly Criticize Opposing Analysis → Ethics Review Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Publicly Criticize Opposing Analysis → Professional Reputations Publicly Contested
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Publicly Criticize Opposing Analysis → Public Trust In Expertise Strained
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.314830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Is there a violation of the Canons of Ethics by one or both engineers' in offering conflicting opinions or in criticizing the work of the other at a hearing on an engineering project in the interest of the public?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the fact that each engineer is retained by and represents an interested party — one a public agency, one a private company — create an undisclosed conflict of interest that should be affirmatively disclosed to the legislative committee before testimony begins, and does failure to do so constitute an independent ethical violation regardless of the technical quality of the testimony?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Where the engineering question involves genuinely indeterminate factors — such as future population growth, water demand projections, and cost estimates subject to wide variance — are the engineers ethically obligated to explicitly acknowledge the epistemic limits of their analyses to the legislative committee, rather than presenting their conclusions with unqualified confidence?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: If the legislature ultimately adopts the engineering approach that one of the testifying engineers opposed, does that engineer have any continuing ethical obligation — such as flagging safety concerns or unresolved technical risks — or does the engineer's professional duty end when the legislative decision is made?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the standard of 'high level of professional deportment' required for permissible peer criticism impose a meaningfully enforceable constraint, or is it so vague that it provides no practical ethical guidance — and who bears responsibility for determining when criticism has crossed from legitimate technical challenge into unprofessional conduct before a legislative body?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Loyalty to Client Within Ethical Limits conflict with the Objectivity Obligation requiring data-grounded legislative testimony — and specifically, at what point does an engineer's advocacy for a client's preferred dam design cross from permissible loyal representation into a compromise of the objectivity that legislative bodies are entitled to expect from expert witnesses?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency conflict with the Engineer Public Testimony Role at a legislative infrastructure hearing — and if a legislature may legitimately choose a less efficient engineering solution for policy reasons, does an engineer who advocates purely on efficiency grounds risk misleading the legislature about the full range of considerations it is entitled to weigh?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Honest Disagreement Permissibility conflict with Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity when one or both engineers' positions happen to align perfectly with their clients' financial or institutional interests — and should the ethical analysis require affirmative evidence that each engineer's honest conviction preceded and is independent of client retention, rather than merely assuming good faith?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension — treating a legislative committee as a legitimate public body before which peer criticism is permissible — conflict with the principle of Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution, insofar as aggressive mutual criticism between retained experts may distort rather than inform legislative deliberation, effectively substituting adversarial advocacy for the disinterested technical guidance that the legislature actually needs?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did both engineers fulfill their duty of objectivity and honest conviction when testifying before the state legislature, given that each was retained by a party with a financial or institutional stake in the outcome?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the practice of allowing retained engineers with opposing institutional affiliations to publicly criticize each other's analyses before a legislative committee produce better public policy outcomes than a model in which only neutral, unaffiliated experts testify?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did both engineers demonstrate the professional virtues of intellectual honesty, epistemic humility, and civic responsibility when they submitted voluminous engineering data and openly criticized each other's analyses before the legislative committee, particularly given the inherent indeterminacy of cost and growth estimates underlying each position?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.312968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Canon requiring engineers to act in the public interest impose a categorical duty on retained legislative witnesses to disclose the limitations and uncertainties of their own analyses — not merely to criticize the opposing engineer's findings — and did both engineers in this case satisfy that duty?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If either engineer had failed to disclose their institutional affiliation — the state power commission or the private power company — at the outset of their legislative testimony, would the Board's conclusion of ethical permissibility have changed, and what additional obligations would have been triggered?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if one engineer's criticism of the other had crossed from technical analysis into personal disparagement of the opposing engineer's competence or integrity — would the Board's finding of ethical permissibility have been reversed, and which specific canons would have been violated?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the legislature had ultimately adopted the high dam solution over the low dams recommendation, and the high dam subsequently failed causing public harm, would the ethical analysis of the private power company engineer's testimony retroactively change — or does the Board's framework insulate good-faith, data-grounded testimony from post-hoc ethical indictment regardless of outcome?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if both engineers had been retained not by institutional clients but had testified as independent private citizens — would the ethical framework governing their mutual criticism and conflicting opinions have been materially different, and would the advocacy-objectivity tension identified by the Board have been resolved more easily?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.313219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Regulatory_Testimony_Affiliation_Disclosure_Standard_Instance
type: RegulatoryTestimonyAffiliationDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE / Professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Affiliation and Client Representation Disclosure in Legislative Testimony
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:11.810675+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies
usedby: Both professional engineers testifying before the state legislature
usedincontext: Each engineer testifies while explicitly representing a specific client (state power commission and private power company respectively), raising obligations of transparent affiliation disclosure before the legislative body
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.727963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.310824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:50:30.311357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Private Power Company PE
type: RetainedEngineerPublicHearingAdvocacy-ObjectivityBalancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Private power company PE's legislative testimony on one high dam as more effective and less expensive
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The private power company PE occupies a hybrid role: simultaneously representing the company's preferred solution (one high dam) and serving as a technically responsible professional whose testimony carries independent credibility before the legislature; this requires presenting the high-dam analysis truthfully and with supporting data, not merely as commercial advocacy.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The private company PE must present the high-dam position truthfully and with full engineering analysis, permitting emphasis on cost and effectiveness advantages while not suppressing material technical information that would be relevant to the legislature's decision.
invokedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
sourcetext: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
tensionresolution: The advocacy-objectivity balance is maintained by grounding the testimony in engineering analysis and submitting voluminous data, which demonstrates technical support for the position rather than purely commercial advocacy.
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.733447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — State Power Commission PE
type: RetainedEngineerPublicHearingAdvocacy-ObjectivityBalancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State power commission PE's legislative testimony on low dams as the most efficient engineering solution
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The state power commission PE occupies a hybrid role: simultaneously representing the commission's preferred solution (low dams) and serving as a technically responsible professional whose testimony carries independent credibility before the legislature; this requires presenting the low-dam analysis truthfully and with supporting data, not merely as advocacy.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The state PE's obligation is to present the commission's engineering position truthfully and with full supporting data, permitting emphasis on the low-dam solution's advantages while not suppressing material technical information that would be relevant to the legislature's decision.
invokedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
principleclass: Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
tensionresolution: The advocacy-objectivity balance is maintained by grounding the testimony in engineering studies and submitting voluminous data, which signals that the position is technically supported rather than purely advocacy-driven.
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.732030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Legislature Committee
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Legislative body', 'function': 'Receiving testimony and recommendations on pending infrastructure legislation'}
caseinvolvement: Legislative committee convening hearings to receive technical comments and recommendations on proposed bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered
textreferences: Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.730499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Government agency', 'jurisdiction': 'State level', 'interest': 'Water supply, flood control, and electric power policy'}
caseinvolvement: Public agency whose engineering position (low dams) is represented before the state legislature; retains or employs the testifying PE.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employs_or_retains', 'target': 'State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'stakeholder_in', 'target': 'State Legislature Hearings'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.730208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission Engineer Legislative Testimony
type: LegislativeTestimonyCompetingPrincipalRepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the legislative committee hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power bills
affectedparties: Engineer representing private power company
affectedparties: Engineer representing state power commission
affectedparties: General citizenry
affectedparties: State legislature and committee
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:42.311661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
stateclass: Legislative Testimony Competing Principal Representation State
subject: Professional engineer representing the state power commission testifying before the legislative committee
terminatedby: Conclusion of legislative hearings
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
triggeringevent: Legislative committee calling hearings to receive comments and recommendations on competing proposals
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.730797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application
type: PeerReviewAdverseFindingNon-MalicePresumptionApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the high-dam approach is less efficient — does not satisfy the malicious intent prerequisite required to establish a violation of the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation
casecontext: Legislative hearing; state power commission PE criticizes high-dam analysis as less efficient than low-dam series
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis and findings on technical grounds without malicious intent
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.744785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Adverse Technical Conclusion Non-Malicious Non-Violation
type: AdverseTechnicalConclusionMaliciousIntentNon-PresumptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE criticizes the high-dam engineering analysis as less efficient; this criticism is grounded in engineering data and does not constitute malicious injury to the opposing engineer's reputation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Ethics adjudicating body reviewing state power commission PE's criticism of high-dam approach
constraintclass: Adverse Technical Conclusion Malicious Intent Non-Presumption Constraint
constraintstatement: The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's high-dam engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the high-dam approach is less efficient and more expensive — cannot alone constitute a violation of ethics provisions prohibiting injury to another engineer's professional reputation; malicious or false intent is a necessary predicate that must be affirmatively shown and cannot be presumed from the adverse technical conclusion alone.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section 12; BER precedent on adverse technical conclusion non-presumption of malice
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: Applicable to any ethics review of the legislative testimony
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
type: AdverseTechnicalFindingMaliciousIntentPrerequisiteNon-SatisfactionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE criticizes the private power company PE's analysis and findings before the legislative committee, implicitly challenging the correctness of the high-dam engineering position.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE and ethics adjudicators
obligationclass: Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Prerequisite Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the high-dam approach is less efficient and more expensive — does not constitute reputation-injuring conduct prohibited by professional codes, because no malicious or false intent is present; the adverse finding flows from good-faith engineering analysis.
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During and after legislative testimony
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.737884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Constraint
type: Inter-EngineerPublicPolicyCriticismProfessionalDeportmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE publicly criticizing private power company PE's engineering analysis at state legislative hearing on dam configuration
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: State Power Commission PE
constraintclass: Inter-Engineer Public Policy Criticism Professional Deportment Constraint
constraintstatement: The State Power Commission PE, in criticizing the Private Power Company PE's high-dam engineering analysis before the state legislative committee, was constrained by Canon 24's due-restraint requirement to avoid personalities and abuse, and to base criticism on engineering conclusions and the application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses — not on personal attacks on the opposing engineer's competence or motives.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 24; BER interpretation that due restraint means avoiding personalities and abuse while grounding criticism in engineering data
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony and any public criticism of the opposing engineer's work
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
textreferences: We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.751849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer testifying before state legislative committee on major public infrastructure decision involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: State Power Commission PE
constraintclass: Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Testimony Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: The State Power Commission PE was not constrained by Canon 24's forum-preference language (engineering society gatherings and engineering press) from testifying before the state legislative committee, because Canon 24's forum implication must not be interpreted as interfering with the engineer's duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 24; Canon 5; BER interpretation extending Canon 5 testimony obligations to public hearings and procedures
sourcetext: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony proceedings
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press.
textreferences: However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.752146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration
type: RetainedLegislativeWitnessClient-AdvocacyBoundarySelf-CalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Retained Legislative Witness Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE was required to calibrate the permissible boundary between legitimate advocacy for the low-dams position and impermissible conduct such as misrepresentation or personal attacks on the opposing engineer
casecontext: Legislative hearing; state power commission PE advocates for low-dam series while criticizing high-dam analysis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Freely criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis and findings while remaining within ethical boundaries of professional deportment
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.745800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory
type: CompetingPublicGoodsBalancedAdvisoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Legislative hearing on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; the choice between low dams and one high dam involves trade-offs across multiple public goods.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: The state power commission PE was obligated to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, presenting the trade-offs between the low-dams and high-dam approaches completely and objectively so that the legislature could make an informed policy decision.
sourcetext: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
temporalscope: During legislative testimony
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Execution
type: CompetingPublicGoodsConflictRecognitionandAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE was required to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in legislative testimony, ensuring the committee understood the tradeoffs between competing public welfare objectives
casecontext: Legislative hearing on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying about engineering studies addressing water supply, flood control, and electric power production objectives simultaneously
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.744246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory at Legislature
type: CompetingPublicGoodsNon-DistortionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The legislative debate involves multiple competing public goods — water supply, flood control, and electric power — and the engineer's testimony must address these trade-offs honestly
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the state power commission
constraintclass: Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: The state power commission PE must acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, and must not distort, suppress, or selectively omit findings that bear on the trade-offs between these competing goods in a manner that misleads the legislative committee.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code objectivity provisions; BER Case 98-5 on competing public goods non-distortion
sourcetext: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power.
temporalscope: During legislative hearing testimony and data submission
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.741254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Data Submission Completeness
type: RetainedLegislativeWitnessEngineerData-SubmissionCompletenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative committee hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills; PE submits engineering data supporting series of low dams.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Retained Legislative Witness Engineer Data-Submission Completeness Obligation
obligationstatement: The state power commission PE was obligated to submit voluminous and complete engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the low-dams position, ensuring the legislature had the full evidentiary basis for the engineering conclusion.
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
temporalscope: At the time of legislative testimony
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.736917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Data Submission Completeness Execution
type: LegislativeHearingVoluminousDataSubmissionCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Legislative Hearing Voluminous Data Submission Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE compiled and submitted voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the low-dams position, fulfilling the data-submission completeness obligation
casecontext: Legislative hearing; PE submits engineering studies and data supporting low-dam series as most efficient engineering solution
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Submission of voluminous engineering data supporting the series-of-low-dams engineering position to the state legislative committee
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.742660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Legislative Opinion Constraint
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE testifying before state legislative committee on water-power complex dam configuration
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: State Power Commission PE
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: The State Power Commission PE was constrained by Canon 7 to refrain from publicly expressing the low-dams engineering opinion before the legislative committee unless informed as to the facts relating thereto — requiring that the opinion be grounded in established engineering data including water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, and other relevant physical facts.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 7; BER recognition that Canon 7 requires engineers to be informed as to the facts before publicly expressing technical opinions
sourcetext: Canon 7-'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
temporalscope: Prior to and during legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Canon 7-'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.752707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Low-Dams Legislative Opinion
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer submits voluminous engineering data supporting the low-dams position, satisfying the factual-grounding requirement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the state power commission
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: The state power commission PE's advocacy for the series-of-low-dams approach must be grounded in established facts and completed engineering analysis — the engineer may not publicly express the low-dams position before the legislature unless that position is founded on completed professional studies.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 7 (refrain from publicly expressing opinion unless informed as to the facts); Engineering Factual Basis Requirement Standard
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
temporalscope: At and prior to legislative testimony
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.739411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Low-Dams Opinion
type: Fact-GroundedTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE submits voluminous engineering data supporting the series-of-low-dams conclusion.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: The state power commission PE was obligated to ground the low-dams engineering position in established facts and completed professional analysis, submitting complete engineering data to the legislative committee rather than unsupported advocacy.
sourcetext: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
temporalscope: At the time of legislative testimony and data submission
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.736651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyforCivicAdvocacyEvaluationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE testifies before legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution for water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's testimony
obligationclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Evaluation Obligation
obligationstatement: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the series-of-low-dams solution best served the public interest; the PE need not be proven technically correct, and correctness of the engineering position is not germane to the ethical evaluation.
sourcetext: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
temporalscope: At any point of ethics review following the legislative testimony
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Recognition
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyCivicAdvocacyEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Evaluation Capability
capabilitystatement: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the low-dams position served the public interest, without requiring proof that the position was objectively correct
casecontext: Legislative hearing; ethics review of whether the PE's advocacy testimony was ethically permissible
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Testifying sincerely that engineering studies support the low-dams position as the most efficient engineering solution
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Legislative Advocacy
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyCivicAdvocacyCorrectnessNon-RequirementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The state power commission PE sincerely advocates for the low-dams approach based on engineering studies; the ultimate legislative resolution of the debate does not retroactively render the advocacy unethical
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Ethics adjudicating body reviewing state power commission PE's legislative testimony
constraintclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint
constraintstatement: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's legislative testimony are constrained from conditioning the permissibility of the low-dams advocacy on the ultimate correctness of that engineering position — it is sufficient that the engineer sincerely believed the low-dams approach was the most efficient solution and was acting in the public interest.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code civic advocacy provisions; BER precedent on good faith sincerity sufficiency
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
temporalscope: Applicable to any post-hearing ethics review
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
type: EngineeringAdvocateRoleHonestConvictionPrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE serving as retained advocate for low-dams position before state legislative committee
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: State Power Commission PE
constraintclass: Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: The State Power Commission PE's advocacy for a series of low dams before the state legislative committee was constrained to reflect the engineer's honest professional conviction — the engineer could not ethically advocate the low-dams position unless genuinely convinced of its technical soundness, as Rule 10's recognition of the advocate role presupposes that advocacy reflects sincere professional judgment.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Rule 10; Canon 5; Canon 7; BER recognition that the advocate role presupposes honest conviction
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony proceedings
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.752438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Honest Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition
type: HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative committee hearing where the state power commission PE publicly challenges the private power company PE's engineering analysis and advocates for the low-dams alternative.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE and ethics adjudicators
obligationclass: Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: The state power commission PE's public expression of disagreement with the private power company PE's high-dam engineering conclusion — by proposing the alternative low-dams approach and contributing to open legislative debate — is ethically permissible and consistent with the NSPE Code, provided the statements are honest and grounded in professional judgment.
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During and after legislative testimony
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.738867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Two qualified PEs reach opposing engineering conclusions on the most efficient and economical method for water supply, flood control, and electric power production; the disagreement is genuine and data-supported on both sides.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's conduct
obligationclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Any ethics body reviewing the state power commission PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (series of low dams) from the same underlying engineering problem as the private power company PE (one high dam) does not constitute an ethical violation — honest professional disagreement between qualified engineers is a normal and legitimate feature of engineering practice.
sourcetext: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
temporalscope: At any point of ethics review following the legislative testimony
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
textreferences: The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.737599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation Recognition
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementBetweenQualifiedEngineersNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Ethics bodies reviewing the state power commission PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (low dams) from the same facts as the private power company PE (high dam) constitutes honest technical disagreement, not an ethical violation
casecontext: Both PEs analyze the same water supply, flood control, and power generation problem and reach different engineering conclusions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Reaching a different engineering conclusion from the same water resource facts as the opposing PE
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Indeterminate Factor Estimate Epistemic Humility
type: IndeterminateFactorEstimate-BasedOpinionEpistemicHumilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer testifying before state legislative committee on water-power complex dam configuration based on estimated indeterminate factors
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: State Power Commission PE
constraintclass: Indeterminate Factor Estimate-Based Opinion Epistemic Humility Constraint
constraintstatement: The State Power Commission PE, in testifying that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, was constrained to acknowledge that this opinion necessarily rested on estimates of indeterminate factors — including construction cost comparisons, population growth projections, economic development trends, and future equipment efficiency — and could not present this judgment as mathematically certain or uniquely correct.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 5; Canon 7; BER recognition that engineers must base opinions on estimates of indeterminate factors
sourcetext: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.751562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Inter-Engineer Criticism Professional Deportment
type: Inter-EngineerPublicPolicyCriticismProfessionalDeportmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis and findings; the deportment constraint governs the manner in which such criticism is permissibly offered
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the state power commission
constraintclass: Inter-Engineer Public Policy Criticism Professional Deportment Constraint
constraintstatement: The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee must be offered at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities, abuse, and malicious or false attacks — and must be grounded in engineering conclusions and data rather than personal disparagement.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 24 (due restraint); NSPE Code Section 12; BER Case Nos. 63-6 and 65-9
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During legislative hearing testimony and cross-criticism of opposing engineer
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.740001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Client Affiliation Disclosure
type: LegislativeTestimonyRetainedEngineerClientAffiliationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer explicitly identified as 'representing the state power commission' — the disclosure obligation is satisfied on the facts of this case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the state power commission
constraintclass: Legislative Testimony Retained Engineer Client Affiliation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: The state power commission PE must clearly disclose to the legislative committee that the testimony is offered on behalf of the state power commission as a retained witness — the engineer may not present the low-dams advocacy in a manner that obscures the client relationship and implies independent expert status.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code non-deception provisions; Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
temporalscope: At the outset of and throughout legislative testimony
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.741540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony NSPE Code Conformance
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislative hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; engineer retained by state power commission advocates for series of low dams
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the state power commission
constraintclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: The state power commission PE's testimony before the legislative committee must conform fully to the NSPE Code of Ethics — including honesty, objectivity, factual grounding, and avoidance of misleading selectivity — regardless of the advocacy role played on behalf of the commission.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canons of Ethics (Canons 5, 7, 24); NSPE Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 10
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative hearing testimony and data submission process
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.736233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State legislature hearings on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE represents state power commission's preferred solution of a series of low dams.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Obligation
obligationstatement: The state power commission PE was obligated to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, grounding testimony in engineering studies and professional analysis rather than pure client advocacy, and presenting the low-dams position with objectivity and professional integrity.
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
temporalscope: During and throughout the legislative committee hearing testimony
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.736367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity Conformance
type: NSPECodePublicTestimonyConformanceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE was required to self-assess whether testimony before the state legislative committee conformed to NSPE Code obligations of objectivity and truthfulness
casecontext: Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power bills; PE testifies as retained witness for state power commission
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before the legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.742406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
type: StateAgencyLegislativeHearingWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'affiliation': 'State Power Commission', 'specialty': 'Water supply, flood control, and power infrastructure engineering', 'testimony_position': 'Series of low dams as optimal solution'}
caseinvolvement: Testified before the state legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution; submitted voluminous engineering data and criticized the opposing engineer's analysis.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:15:25.989723+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer_adversary', 'target': 'Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness'}
relationships: {'type': 'represents', 'target': 'State Power Commission'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'State Legislature Committee'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: State Agency Legislative Hearing Witness Engineer
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.728417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
type: EngineeringOpinionEstimate-BasedIndeterminacyHonestAcknowledgmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Power Commission PE testified before the state legislative committee on water supply, flood control, and electric power production, advocating for a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Honest Acknowledgment Obligation
obligationstatement: The State Power Commission PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, was obligated to acknowledge that this conclusion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency trends, rather than presenting the conclusion as settled engineering fact.
sourcetext: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data
textreferences: it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.747714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Single-Answer Recognition
type: Multi-EngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementMutualEthicalLegitimacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE and private power company PE each testified before a state legislative committee advocating competing dam configurations for a water-power complex
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: State Power Commission PE
constraintclass: Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
constraintstatement: The State Power Commission PE's advocacy for a series of low dams could not be characterized as incorrect or unethical solely because the Private Power Company PE reached a different technically grounded conclusion (one high dam), as both approaches were based on sound engineering principles applied to the same complex water-power problem.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case Discussion; NSPE Canons 5, 7; BER recognition that large complex engineering problems admit multiple sound approaches
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony and ethics review proceedings
textreferences: An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.751262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE NSPE Code Legislative Testimony Conformance
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State power commission PE testifying before state legislative committee on major public infrastructure decision
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: State Power Commission PE
constraintclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: The State Power Commission PE was constrained to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — including Canon 5's requirement that opinion be founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction, Canon 7's requirement of factual grounding, and Canon 24's due-restraint requirement — prohibiting testimony that was selective in a deceptive manner, factually unsupported, or structured to mislead the legislative body.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:11.612006+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canons 5, 7, 24; Rule 10; Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
sourcetext: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
temporalscope: Throughout the legislative testimony proceedings
textreferences: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
textreferences: Canon 7-'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
type: PublicInterestPeerCritiqueProfessionalDeportmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Legislative committee hearing where both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis and findings on the low-dams vs. one-high-dam question.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:22:08.323408+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE (Legislative Witness)
obligationclass: Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment Obligation
obligationstatement: The state power commission PE was obligated, when criticizing the private power company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee, to maintain a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personal attacks, grounding criticism in engineering data and conclusions, and offering alternative analyses rather than abusive characterizations.
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
temporalscope: During legislative testimony when criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.737201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment Execution
type: PublicInterestEngineeringPeerCritiqueHigh-LevelProfessionalDeportmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Engineering Peer Critique High-Level Professional Deportment Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE was required to criticize the private power company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee with high-level professional deportment, avoiding personalities and basing criticism on engineering conclusions
casecontext: Legislative hearing; state power commission PE criticizes high-dam analysis while advocating for low-dam series
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Freely criticizing the analysis and findings of the opposing engineer before the legislative committee
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
textreferences: freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.743056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Retained Witness Objectivity Maintenance
type: ExpertWitnessNon-AdvocateObjectivityinRegulatoryTestimonyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Expert Witness Non-Advocate Objectivity in Regulatory Testimony Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE, as a retained witness before the legislative committee, was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions independent of the state power commission's advocacy interests, maintaining objectivity while presenting the low-dams position
casecontext: Legislative hearing; PE testifies as retained witness for state power commission on water resource infrastructure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying based on engineering studies rather than purely on the state power commission's policy preferences
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.745100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Permissibility Recognition
type: Same-FactsDifferent-ConclusionsEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE and reviewing ethics bodies must recognize that reaching a different engineering conclusion (low dams) from the same water resource facts as the private power company PE (high dam) is ethically permissible and does not imply misconduct
casecontext: Both PEs analyze the same water supply, flood control, and power generation problem and reach different engineering conclusions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Reaching the low-dams conclusion from the same set of water resource engineering facts analyzed by the opposing PE
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.744517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Technical Fact Command for Legislative Testimony
type: TechnicalFactCommandandReportingReadinessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technical Fact Command and Reporting Readiness Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE was required to be fully in command of all relevant engineering facts and data before delivering legislative testimony supporting the low-dams position, ensuring the technical basis could withstand scrutiny from the opposing PE and the legislative committee
casecontext: Legislative hearing; PE must command all engineering facts to support testimony and withstand peer criticism
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Submitting voluminous engineering data in support of the low-dams position before the legislative committee
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.746341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Voluminous Data Submission Completeness
type: RetainedLegislativeWitnessDataCompletenessandFactualGroundingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer satisfies this constraint by submitting voluminous engineering data; the constraint is met on the facts of this case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Professional engineer representing the state power commission
constraintclass: Retained Legislative Witness Data Completeness and Factual Grounding Constraint
constraintstatement: The state power commission PE must submit complete and voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the low-dams position — selective or incomplete data submission that misleads the legislature about the engineering basis for the position is prohibited.
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:05.811367+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Canon 7; NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions
sourcetext: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
temporalscope: During legislative hearing data submission
textreferences: Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.739703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE Water Resource Multi-Criteria Analysis
type: WaterResourceInfrastructureMulti-CriteriaEngineeringAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Engineering Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: The state power commission PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis supporting the series-of-low-dams position across water supply, flood control, and electric power production dimensions
casecontext: Engineering analysis of water supply, flood control, and electric power production alternatives for state legislative consideration
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Conducting engineering studies with professional colleagues concluding that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:25:09.577241+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
textreferences: A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
textreferences: engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.746081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
type: Canon24Due-RestraintPeerCriticismPersonality-AvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Power Commission PE and Private Power Company PE each freely criticized the other's analysis and findings before the state legislative committee on dam configuration.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Personality-Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: The State Power Commission PE, in criticizing the Private Power Company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or data applications, and offering alternative conclusions (series of low dams) rather than personal attacks.
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
textreferences: He will exercise due restraint in criticizing another engineer's work in public
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.748390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference Self-Application
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Canon 24 Forum Limitation Legislative Duty Non-Interference Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The State Power Commission PE was required to recognize that Canon 24's forum preference for engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not prohibit — and should not be interpreted as interfering with — the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer must navigate Canon 24 forum limitation language while fulfilling duty to public body
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before the state legislative committee and offering technical criticism of the competing engineering analysis without treating Canon 24 as a prohibition on such public body testimony
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Power Commission PE testified and offered peer criticism before the state legislative committee, a public body rather than an engineering society or press forum.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Duty Obligation
obligationstatement: The State Power Commission PE was obligated to recognize that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not interfere with the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision, and accordingly to testify and criticize the opposing analysis before the legislature.
sourcetext: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
textreferences: Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals. We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.747848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Competing Public Goods Balanced Legislative Testimony
type: CompetingPublicGoodsWaterSupplyFloodControlPowerProductionBalancedTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Power Commission PE testified before the state legislative committee on a water-power complex project serving water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Competing Public Goods Water Supply Flood Control Power Production Balanced Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: The State Power Commission PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee on the dam configuration question, was obligated to present testimony that acknowledged the multi-dimensional public welfare implications — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — of the series of low dams approach, rather than presenting testimony that optimized for only one public good.
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.748944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
type: EngineeringOpinionEstimate-BasedIndeterminacyAcknowledgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment Capability
capabilitystatement: The State Power Commission PE was required to possess the capability to acknowledge that the low-dams recommendation rested on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost comparisons, population growth, and economic development projections, and to communicate this epistemic uncertainty honestly to the legislative committee.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer testifying for state power commission position favoring series of low dams
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before the state legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams, while recognizing that such support is grounded in estimated rather than mathematically certain factors
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
textreferences: the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
type: LegislativeHearingEngineeringAdvocateRoleHonestConvictionPrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Power Commission PE served as an advocate for the state power commission's preferred engineering solution (series of low dams) before the state legislative committee.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
obligationclass: Legislative Hearing Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: The State Power Commission PE, in advocating before the state legislative committee for a series of low dams, was obligated to ensure that this advocacy position was grounded in honest conviction based on adequate professional knowledge and analysis, not merely in the client's preferred outcome.
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
temporalscope: During legislative committee testimony
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.748130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite Self-Verification
type: EngineeringAdvocateHonestConvictionPrerequisiteSelf-VerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Advocate Honest Conviction Prerequisite Self-Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: The State Power Commission PE was required to verify, before advocating for the series-of-low-dams position before the legislative committee, that this advocacy position reflected genuine honest professional conviction rather than mere client instruction.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer serving as retained advocate for state power commission position
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Advocacy for low-dams position before state legislative committee grounded in sincere professional engineering judgment
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
textreferences: Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.750128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment
type: NSPECodePublicTestimonyConformanceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The State Power Commission PE was required to self-assess whether the manner, content, and framing of legislative testimony on the low-dams position conformed to the NSPE Code of Ethics, including obligations to be objective and truthful and to serve the public interest.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer testifying as retained witness for state power commission
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Testifying before state legislative committee in a manner consistent with NSPE Code obligations including Canon 5, Canon 7, and Canon 24
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
textreferences: Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
textreferences: Canon 7- 'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.729383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment
type: PublicInterestEngineeringPeerCritiqueHigh-LevelProfessionalDeportmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Interest Engineering Peer Critique High-Level Professional Deportment Capability
capabilitystatement: The State Power Commission PE was required to criticize the private power company PE's engineering analysis before the legislative committee at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions and data, and offering alternative conclusions rather than personal attacks.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer criticizing opposing engineer's analysis before state legislature
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Offering technical criticism of the one-high-dam engineering analysis before the state legislative committee with due restraint per Canon 24
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
textreferences: Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.729645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

State Power Commission PE — Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition
type: Same-FactsDifferent-ConclusionsEthicalPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The State Power Commission PE was required to recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (series of low dams) from the same physical facts as the private power company PE (one high dam) is ethically permissible and does not imply that either engineer acted unethically or incompetently.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration; both engineers working from same physical fact base but reaching different engineering conclusions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Presenting the low-dams engineering conclusion before the state legislative committee based on the same underlying physical facts (water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff) as the opposing engineer
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.750256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Testify for Low Dams
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Testify for Low Dams → Competing Analyses Made Public
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Testify for Single High Dam
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.726865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Water-Power Complex Indeterminate Factor Estimation
type: IndeterminateFactorEngineeringEstimateRelianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the engineering analysis and opinion formation phase of the water-power complex project
affectedparties: Affected public
affectedparties: Engineers rendering opinions
affectedparties: Public body relying on those opinions
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:36.155582+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
stateclass: Indeterminate Factor Engineering Estimate Reliance State
subject: Engineers forming opinions on water-power complex based on estimated indeterminate factors
terminatedby: Completion of engineering opinion and submission to public body
textreferences: Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data
textreferences: engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
triggeringevent: Need to form professional opinions on construction costs, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.733938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Water-Power Complex Large Project Engineer
type: PublicPolicyBalancingLargeProjectEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'project_type': 'Water-power complex or comparable large public infrastructure', 'indeterminate_factors': ['Construction cost estimates', 'Population growth', 'Economic development trends', 'Future equipment efficiency'], 'engineering_basis': 'Sound engineering principles with multiple valid approaches'}
caseinvolvement: An engineer working on a large, complicated public infrastructure project such as a water-power complex, where multiple technically sound approaches exist and the final adopted approach reflects both engineering diagnoses and public policy determinations, including estimates of indeterminate factors.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:17:10.260641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:17:10.260641+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Public agency client'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to', 'target': 'Public policy determination authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public Policy Balancing Large Project Engineer
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles
textreferences: engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area
textreferences: the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.733124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Water-Power Complex Large Project Engineer — Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition
type: LargeComplexProjectMultipleSoundEngineeringApproachesRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Engineering Approaches Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers working on large, complicated public infrastructure projects such as water-power complexes must possess the capability to recognize that multiple technically sound approaches exist and that the final approach may properly incorporate public policy determinations beyond pure engineering efficiency.
casecontext: Large water-power complex infrastructure project with competing engineering approaches presented to state legislature
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that both series-of-low-dams and one-high-dam configurations represent sound engineering approaches to the water-power complex problem
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Water-Power Complex Large Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
textreferences: Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.749997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Analysis — Private Power Company PE
type: WaterResourceInfrastructureMulti-CriteriaEngineeringAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Engineering Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: The Private Power Company PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis of the one-high-dam versus low-dams alternatives, evaluating engineering efficiency, economic cost, flood control effectiveness, water supply adequacy, electric power production, and constructability.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer presenting multi-criteria analysis supporting one-high-dam position
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Submission of voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee supporting the one-high-dam position across multiple engineering criteria
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.739129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Analysis — State Power Commission PE
type: WaterResourceInfrastructureMulti-CriteriaEngineeringAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Engineering Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: The State Power Commission PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis of the low-dams versus one-high-dam alternatives, evaluating engineering efficiency, economic cost, flood control effectiveness, water supply adequacy, electric power production, and constructability.
casecontext: Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer presenting multi-criteria analysis supporting low-dams position
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Submission of voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee supporting the series-of-low-dams position across multiple engineering criteria
discoveredincase: 114
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 114
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T15:33:06.937068+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
textreferences: Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
textreferences: Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
wasattributedto: Case 114 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.750776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

legislative committee hearings before Discussion section retrospective ethical analysis
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

multi-year legislative and public debate before legislative committee hearings
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

mutual public criticism of each engineer's analysis during legislative committee hearings
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

pending legislative bills (water supply, flood control, power production) starts multi-year legislative and public debate
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction

submission of voluminous engineering data during legislative committee hearings
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T15:38:37.753779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 114 Extraction