ProEthica Case 11 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.748136
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case 14-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 14-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J's situation
textreferences: BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J's situation
textreferences: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client
textreferences: In Case 14-8, Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client, and that analysis was working its way through the court system. During the legal review, Engineer A resigned from the firm and went to work for the State – the State was an objector to the analysis A prepared.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review analyzing City Engineer J's conflict of interest
usedincontext: Provides precedential reasoning for evaluating City Engineer J's conflict of interest arising from prior employment with Firm BWJ; establishes that an engineer transitioning from private firm to a public agency reviewing that firm's work must consider ongoing duties to former employer and client, and may require consent before participating in related proceedings
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.751514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

BER Case 16-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 16-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: We turn to BER Case 16-7 for guidance; the case discusses Engineer A's work providing forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation
textreferences: We turn to BER Case 16-7 for guidance; the case discusses Engineer A's work providing forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
usedby: Board of Ethical Review analyzing Principal Engineer R's obligations upon discovery of design errors
usedincontext: Provides precedential reasoning for Principal Engineer R's obligation to acknowledge and disclose the stormwater calculation errors; establishes that upon discovering inaccurate data underlying a prior report, an engineer has an affirmative obligation to advise the client and revise conclusions accordingly
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.751656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

BER Case 93-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 93-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Although dealing with unethical use of an overbroad indemnification clause, BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders. This tenet is based upon the view that as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind.
textreferences: Although dealing with unethical use of an overbroad indemnification clause, BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders. This tenet is based upon the view that as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review to ground the professional responsibility acknowledgment obligation applicable to Principal Engineer R
usedincontext: Provides contextual support for the principle that engineers must accept responsibility for their professional services; cited to establish the foundational ethical tenet that engineers, as members of a learned profession, are expected to use their skill and expertise for the betterment of mankind and must own their professional errors
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.751940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

BER Case 95-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board reviewed these facts, and used them, in conjunction with a similar fact set in BER Case 95-5 to conclude that once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
textreferences: The Board reviewed these facts, and used them, in conjunction with a similar fact set in BER Case 95-5 to conclude that once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in conjunction with BER Case 16-7 to establish error disclosure obligations for Principal Engineer R
usedincontext: Cited alongside BER Case 16-7 to reinforce the affirmative obligation of engineers to disclose inaccurate data and revise conclusions when errors are discovered; provides a similar fact pattern supporting the duty to acknowledge and correct professional errors
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.751813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Case 11 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 5
total elements: 11
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

CausalLink_City Engages IBM for Review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

CausalLink_Developer Retains Firm BWJ
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

CausalLink_J Departs BWJ for City
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

CausalLink_J Reviews and Approves BWJ Pla
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

CausalLink_R Acknowledges Error and Remed
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

CausalLink_R Designs Stormwater Plans
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City C Municipal Infrastructure Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'location': 'City C, State Q', 'regulatory_role': 'Subdivision plan approval authority'}
caseinvolvement: City C acting as the municipal authority that engaged third-party engineering firm IBM to review the subdivision design following flooding complaints, bearing authority over the review process and obligations to protect public welfare and investigate credible complaints of design deficiency and conflicts of interest.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Firm IBM'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Developer G'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
textreferences: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.750013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City C Subdivision Stormwater Regulation - 25-Year Recurrence Interval Standard
type: StormwaterManagementRegulation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: City C municipal regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: City C Subdivision Regulations - Stormwater Peak Flow Requirements
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Stormwater Management Regulation
sourcetext: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions
textreferences: Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
usedby: Firm BWJ (design obligation), City Engineer J (compliance review), Firm IBM (independent verification)
usedincontext: Establishes the binding performance standard that Firm BWJ's subdivision design was required to satisfy: post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must not exceed pre-development conditions. IBM's independent review found this standard was not met.
version: Current at time of subdivision approval
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.748633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engages IBM for Review
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: municipal government, acting through appropriate officials
foreseen unintended effects: Findings could expose City C to liability for approving non-compliant plans
foreseen unintended effects: Findings could implicate Engineer J's conduct
foreseen unintended effects: Findings could support or undermine property owner complaints
fulfills obligation text: NSPE-aligned principle of seeking competent independent review when internal conflict exists
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to ensure municipal infrastructure meets adopted standards
fulfills obligation text: Public duty to investigate citizen complaints about infrastructure performance
fulfills obligation text: Transparency and accountability to affected property owners
guided by principle text: Accountability and transparency in public administration
guided by principle text: Impartial fact-finding when internal conflict of interest is alleged
guided by principle text: Public safety and welfare (NSPE Code I.1 by analogy)
has agent: City C
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Obtain independent, objective technical analysis of whether the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's requirements and whether Engineer J's approval was compromised
requires capability text: Administrative management of third-party review process
requires capability text: Definition of review scope covering both technical compliance and conflict-of-interest context
requires capability text: Procurement of qualified independent engineering firm
temporal marker: Post-construction, after flooding complaints were received
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: Following post-construction flooding complaints and conflict-of-interest allegations, City C made a deliberate administrative decision to retain independent third-party Firm IBM to conduct a technical review of the subdivision stormwater design.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Causal Reasoning Conflict
type: CausalReasoning
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Causal Reasoning
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J was required to apply causal reasoning to trace the relationship between his prior employment at Firm BWJ and the potential compromise of his independent judgment in reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans, establishing the causal chain connecting the revolving-door relationship to the ethical compromise of the plan review process.
casecontext: The causal chain from City Engineer J's prior employment at BWJ to the compromised plan review approval is central to the ethical analysis of the revolving-door conflict of interest in this case.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Apparent failure to apply causal reasoning to recognize how the prior employment relationship causally compromised the integrity of the plan review and approval process.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.758384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recognition
type: ConflictofInterestRecognitionandRecusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J was required to possess the capability to recognize that his prior employment as a principal at Firm BWJ created an actual or apparent conflict of interest when reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ, and to assess whether recusal or disclosure was required.
casecontext: City Engineer J, formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, approved the subdivision plans submitted by his former employer without apparent recusal or disclosure of the prior employment relationship, leading to property owner complaints of ethical compromise.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Apparent failure to recuse or disclose, as evidenced by property owners' complaints that City Engineer J is ethically compromised due to his former employment with Firm BWJ, and by J's approval of BWJ's plans without apparent recusal.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.757277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recognition BWJ Plan Review
type: ConflictofInterestRecognitionandRecusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J needed capability to recognize that prior employment with Firm BWJ created an actual or apparent conflict of interest when reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans in the City Engineer role, and to assess whether recusal or disclosure was required
casecontext: Members of the public perceived City Engineer J's former employment with BWJ as a conflict of interest in reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Public perception of conflict of interest in J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community.
textreferences: The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised.
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Public Role
type: PriorEmploymentRecusalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 14-8 established that an engineer transitioning from private firm to a public agency adverse to the former employer's interests must obtain consent before participating; the present case assessed whether this constraint applied given the temporal gap in J's transition
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: City Engineer J
constraintclass: Prior Employment Recusal Constraint
constraintstatement: City Engineer J was constrained by ongoing loyalty duties to former employer Firm BWJ — arising from the prior employment relationship — from participating in City C actions adverse to BWJ's interests without first obtaining BWJ's consent, mirroring the constraint identified in BER Case 14-8 where Engineer A could not represent the State's adverse interest against a former private employer without prior consent.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 14-8
sourcetext: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client
temporalscope: During the period following City Engineer J's transition from Firm BWJ to City C, particularly during review of BWJ's subdivision plans
textreferences: BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client
textreferences: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.762591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Former Employer Ongoing Duty Recognition
type: RevolvingDoorRecusalObligationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Revolving Door Recusal Obligation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J needed capability to recognize and honor ongoing professional loyalty duties owed to former employer Firm BWJ and its clients when transitioning to the City C municipal role
casecontext: City Engineer J transitioned from private Firm BWJ to public City C role and was responsible for reviewing BWJ subdivision plans
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Assessment of whether ongoing loyalty duties to BWJ prohibited participation in review of BWJ's subdivision plans without former employer consent
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client.
textreferences: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client.
textreferences: The BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Objectivity Plan Review Capability
type: ConflictofInterestRecognitionandRecusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J needed capability to conduct review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans with full objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from prior employment relationship with BWJ
casecontext: City Engineer J administratively reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ for conformance with city policy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Administrative review and approval of subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City Engineer J Municipal Plan Review Engineer -- City Engineer of City C who administratively reviewed and approved the subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ for conformance with city policy
textreferences: City Engineer J Municipal Plan Review Engineer -- City Engineer of City C who administratively reviewed and approved the subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ for conformance with city policy
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Prior Employment Conflict
type: PriorEmploymentApprovalConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time City Engineer J reviewed and approved Firm BWJ's subdivision plans through the present complaints
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City Engineer J
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Neighboring property owners
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
stateclass: Prior Employment Approval Conflict State
subject: City Engineer J's approval of Firm BWJ subdivision plans
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — conflict and its consequences remain active in the facts presented
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J
triggeringevent: City Engineer J, formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, approved the subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ without disclosed recusal or conflict management
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.750695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Prior Employment Recusal BWJ Subdivision Plans
type: PriorEmploymentRecusalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City Engineer J formerly held a principal role at Firm BWJ before transitioning to City C; members of the public raised conflict of interest concerns when J reviewed BWJ's subdivision plans; BER evaluated whether J was ethically compromised
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: City Engineer J
constraintclass: Prior Employment Recusal Constraint
constraintstatement: City Engineer J was constrained from reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ without first evaluating whether the prior employment relationship — particularly if recent — created an appearance of compromised impartiality requiring recusal from the administrative approval process.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 14-8; Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard
sourcetext: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
temporalscope: During the period of City C's review and approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision design documents
textreferences: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client
textreferences: The first ethical issue has to do with whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.761584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Prior Employment Recusal Constraint
type: PriorEmploymentRecusalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City Engineer J approved Firm BWJ's subdivision stormwater plans despite having previously been a principal at Firm BWJ, creating an appearance of compromised impartiality that property owners subsequently challenged.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: City Engineer J
constraintclass: Prior Employment Recusal Constraint
constraintstatement: City Engineer J, as a former principal of Firm BWJ, was ethically constrained from conducting the administrative review and approval of subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ, and was required to recuse himself from that approval authority to avoid a conflict of interest arising from his prior employment relationship.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 14-8; Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
temporalscope: At the time of administrative review and approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision plans for City C
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.754737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Procurement Conflict Awareness
type: EthicalPerception
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Perception
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J was required to possess the ethical perception capability to recognize the ethically salient features of his situation — specifically, that his prior employment as a principal at Firm BWJ created a conflict of interest that compromised or appeared to compromise his independent judgment in reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans.
casecontext: City Engineer J's approval of his former employer's subdivision plans without recusal or disclosure indicates a failure of ethical perception regarding the conflict of interest created by the revolving-door employment relationship.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Apparent failure of ethical perception, as J approved BWJ's plans without apparent recognition of or response to the conflict of interest created by his prior employment relationship.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.758106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Revolving Door Conflict Temporal Assessment
type: RevolvingDoorRecusalObligationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Revolving Door Recusal Obligation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J needed capability to assess whether the elapsed time since leaving Firm BWJ was sufficient to extinguish conflict of interest obligations when reviewing BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
casecontext: City Engineer J reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ; public perceived a conflict of interest
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Assessment of whether J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent enough (less than one year) to trigger recusal obligations when reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.762859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Revolving Door Recusal Assessment
type: RevolvingDoorRecusalObligationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Revolving Door Recusal Obligation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J, as a revolving-door engineer who transitioned from private firm BWJ to the municipal City Engineer role, was required to assess whether his prior employment as a principal at BWJ obligated him to recuse from reviewing and approving BWJ's subdivision plan submissions to City C.
casecontext: City Engineer J's prior role as principal at Firm BWJ created a direct conflict of interest when BWJ submitted subdivision plans to City C for J's review and approval, triggering recusal obligation assessment requirements under professional ethics codes.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Apparent failure to conduct or act on such assessment, as J approved BWJ's plans without recusal, resulting in property owner complaints of ethical compromise and the appearance of conflicted review.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.757409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Review
type: StormwaterRegulatoryComplianceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: City Engineer J, in the municipal plan review role, was required to possess the capability to verify that submitted subdivision stormwater designs complied with City C's post-development peak flow regulations before approving plans for bidding and construction.
casecontext: City Engineer J administratively reviewed and approved the BWJ subdivision plans for conformance with city policy, but the approved design was found to violate stormwater regulations, raising questions about the adequacy of the regulatory compliance review.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Inadequate exercise demonstrated by approval of plans that were subsequently found to violate the 25-year recurrence interval peak flow requirement, resulting in post-construction flooding.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Engineer J
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.757144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Temporal Recency Conflict Assessment BWJ Transition
type: TemporalRecencyConflictAssessmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City Engineer J, formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, held authority to review and approve subdivision plans submitted by BWJ to City C; public concern about conflict of interest prompted ethical review; BER assessed temporal gap as a mitigating factor
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: City Engineer J
constraintclass: Temporal Recency Conflict Assessment Constraint
constraintstatement: City Engineer J's ethical authority to review and approve Firm BWJ's subdivision plans was constrained by the temporal proximity of J's transition from BWJ to City C — if the transition occurred less than one year before the subdivision work was under contract, heightened conflict of interest obligations would apply requiring recusal; the BER assumed the transition occurred at least one year prior, mitigating but not eliminating the conflict assessment obligation.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 14-8; BER Case precedent on conflict of interest temporal assessment
sourcetext: if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
temporalscope: From the date of City Engineer J's transition from Firm BWJ to City C through the period of subdivision plan review and approval
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: Unlike Case 14-8 where the transition literally happened in the midst of the project
textreferences: if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.761420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J's administrative review and approval before subdivision construction
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J and are released for bidding and construction.
from entity text: City Engineer J's administrative review and approval
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: subdivision construction
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: subdivision construction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 201
answers question4: 204
answers question5: 301
answers question6: 302
answers question7: 401
answers question8: 402
cited provision1: II.4.a
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Given the facts, the Board interprets that Engineer J's transition from the private sector to the public sector was not recent and there does not appear to be a conflict between J's former work at BWJ and their current work for City C.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board determined that because Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ was not recent, the temporal gap was sufficient to mitigate any conflict of interest concern, and therefore no ethical violation arose from J's review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans for City C.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 201
answers question4: 204
answers question5: 301
cited provision1: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that City Engineer J's transition was 'not recent' and therefore did not create a conflict of interest, the Board's conclusion rests on an unstated temporal assumption that deserves explicit examination. The NSPE Code and referenced BER cases do not establish a bright-line temporal threshold after which a former private-sector employment relationship categorically ceases to create an appearance of conflict for a public-sector engineer reviewing that former employer's work. The Board's reasoning implicitly treats elapsed time as the dispositive factor, but other variables — including the depth of J's prior financial stake in Firm BWJ, whether J retained any ongoing professional or financial ties to BWJ after departure, the magnitude of the project under review, and whether J's prior work at BWJ directly informed the subdivision design methodology — are equally relevant to a complete conflict-of-interest assessment. A more rigorous analytical framework would require City Engineer J to have proactively disclosed his prior employment to City C decision-makers regardless of elapsed time, allowing those decision-makers — rather than J himself — to determine whether recusal was warranted. This disclosure obligation flows directly from Code Section II.4.a, which requires engineers to disclose all known or potential conflicts that could 'appear to' influence their judgment, a standard that is appearance-based and therefore not automatically extinguished by the passage of time alone.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 204
answers question4: 301
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that no conflict existed because the transition was 'not recent' does not address whether City Engineer J had an affirmative, proactive disclosure obligation independent of whether an actual conflict existed. Even in cases where a former employment relationship is sufficiently attenuated in time to eliminate a substantive conflict, the appearance of impropriety remains a distinct ethical concern under Code Section II.4.a. City Engineer J's failure to disclose his prior principal-level role at Firm BWJ — before reviewing and approving plans prepared by that same firm — denied City C's decision-makers the opportunity to make an informed judgment about whether independent review was warranted. This omission is ethically significant regardless of J's subjective impartiality, because the public's confidence in the integrity of municipal plan review depends not only on actual objectivity but on transparent process. The property owners' subsequent complaints about J's ethical compromise, while not dispositive of actual bias, illustrate precisely the reputational and institutional harm that proactive disclosure is designed to prevent. A complete ethical analysis would therefore find that J had a disclosure obligation under II.4.a even if recusal was ultimately unnecessary, and that his failure to disclose — whatever the elapsed time — represented a procedural ethical shortcoming distinct from the question of substantive conflict.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 303
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that Principal Engineer R re-review Firm IBM's analysis before acknowledging error reflects a reasonable professional standard of verification, but it does not fully account for the independent ethical obligations that arise when confirmed post-development flooding harm has already materialized and affected third-party property owners. The Board frames R's obligation primarily as one of internal verification and error acknowledgment to the client and City C. However, Code Section I.1 — which requires engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — creates an obligation that runs to affected third parties, not merely to clients and regulators. Where flooding damage to neighboring homes has already occurred and an independent engineering firm has confirmed substantial stormwater flow exceedances, Principal Engineer R's ethical obligation is not limited to verifying IBM's methodology before acknowledging error. R also bears a proactive obligation to ensure that affected property owners and City C are not left without timely, accurate information about the nature and scope of the design deficiency while the internal verification process proceeds. Delay in communication — even if justified by the need for methodological verification — can compound harm by preventing affected parties from taking protective or remedial action. The Board's recommendation, while sound as far as it goes, should be understood as establishing a floor rather than a ceiling for R's ethical obligations under these facts.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 303
answers question4: 304
answers question5: 404
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that Principal Engineer R acknowledge errors if Firm BWJ's analysis confirms a mistake does not address the ethically significant complication introduced by the multi-causal nature of the flooding harm. Firm IBM's analysis identified not only stormwater flow exceedances attributable to the subdivision design but also contributing factors including a property owner's undersized driveway culvert and extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding constructed by another property owner. Principal Engineer R bears an ethical obligation under Code Section III.1.a — which prohibits distorting or altering the facts — to ensure that any error acknowledgment or remediation communication accurately and completely represents the multi-causal character of the flooding, rather than allowing the design deficiency to be treated as the sole or primary cause when causation is genuinely shared. This obligation runs in both directions: R must not minimize or obscure a genuine design deficiency by over-attributing harm to third-party actions, but R equally must not accept sole causal responsibility for flooding that was materially exacerbated by post-construction modifications outside BWJ's design scope. A complete and honest accounting of causation — including the third-party contributing factors — is not a defensive maneuver but an affirmative ethical obligation to ensure that City C, Developer G, and affected property owners receive accurate information necessary for informed remediation decisions. Failure to communicate the multi-causal picture completely would itself constitute a distortion of facts prohibited by Code Section III.1.a.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Neither the Board's conclusions nor the explicit case record addresses whether Principal Engineer R had a proactive post-construction verification obligation that, if fulfilled, might have identified the stormwater design deficiency before flooding occurred. The Board's analysis is entirely reactive — focused on what R must do after harm has materialized and after IBM's independent analysis has confirmed non-compliance. However, Code Section I.1's paramount public welfare obligation, read in conjunction with the environmental stewardship principle and the regulatory compliance verification obligation, suggests that engineers directing stormwater-sensitive subdivision designs bear a best-practice ethical obligation to conduct or recommend post-construction verification of stormwater performance before the first significant storm event, particularly where the design operates at or near regulatory thresholds. While the NSPE Code does not explicitly mandate post-construction monitoring, the spirit of the public welfare paramount principle — and the foreseeability of harm to neighboring properties from stormwater design failures — supports the conclusion that proactive verification represents the ethical standard of care for engineers in R's position. The absence of such verification in this case, while not the subject of the Board's explicit conclusions, represents an analytical gap that a complete ethical assessment of R's conduct should address.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 303
answers question4: 304
answers question5: 403
answers question6: 404
cited provision1: III.1.a
cited provision2: III.8
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Although flood damage and independent consultant Firm IBM's analysis show larger flows, Principal Engineer R and Principal Engineers R's firm should confirm whether an error exists – essentially, they should re-review Firm IBM's analysis. If Firm BWJ determines they made a mistake, Principal Engineer R is responsible to acknowledge errors.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board recommended that Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ independently verify whether an error exists by re-reviewing Firm IBM's analysis, and further concluded that if an error is confirmed, Principal Engineer R bears the professional obligation to acknowledge that error, consistent with NSPE Code provisions III.1.a (acknowledging errors) and III.8 (accepting personal responsibility for professional activities).
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: City Engineer J had an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose his prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ to City C decision-makers before reviewing and approving the subdivision plans, regardless of the elapsed time since his departure. NSPE Code Section II.4.a requires engineers to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment. The prior employment relationship is precisely the kind of known potential conflict that must be disclosed so that the client — here, City C — can make an informed determination about whether to assign the review to J or to an independent reviewer. The Board's conclusion that no actual conflict existed because the transition was 'not recent' does not eliminate the disclosure obligation; it merely informs the ultimate finding on whether a conflict was material. Disclosure and conflict determination are sequential obligations: disclosure comes first, and the determination of materiality follows. By failing to disclose proactively, City Engineer J denied City C the opportunity to exercise its own judgment on the matter, which is itself an ethical deficiency independent of whether actual bias existed.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The Board's conclusion that Engineer J's transition was 'not recent' rests on an unstated factual assumption about the elapsed time between his departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans. The Board does not articulate a specific temporal threshold, which leaves the conclusion analytically incomplete. Drawing on the revolving-door principles implicit in BER cases addressing public-sector transitions, a defensible threshold would distinguish between three zones: (1) less than one year — presumptive conflict requiring recusal or at minimum mandatory disclosure and supervisory override; (2) one to three years — rebuttable presumption of conflict requiring disclosure and case-by-case determination by the appointing authority; and (3) more than three years — disclosure still advisable but conflict presumption substantially diminished, consistent with the Board's apparent reasoning here. The absence of an explicit threshold in the Board's analysis creates interpretive uncertainty that could be exploited in future cases where the elapsed time is ambiguous. A principled ethics framework should articulate the temporal standard rather than leave it implicit, because the appearance of impropriety — which NSPE Code Section I.6 requires engineers to avoid — is itself a function of public perception, and the public cannot assess that appearance without knowing the elapsed time.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.8.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The flooding harm to neighboring property owners creates an independent ethical obligation for Principal Engineer R that extends beyond merely notifying Developer G or City C. NSPE Code Section I.1 places the safety, health, and welfare of the public paramount, and this obligation is not discharged simply by communicating with the immediate client. When a design deficiency has already caused material harm to identifiable third parties — here, neighboring property owners who suffered water damage to their homes — the engineer directing that design bears a proactive duty to ensure that affected parties are not left without information necessary to protect themselves from ongoing or future harm. This does not necessarily require Principal Engineer R to directly contact each property owner, but it does require that R ensure City C is fully and urgently informed of the potential design deficiency so that City C can fulfill its own public notification obligations. Waiting passively for a formal error determination before taking any communicative action is inconsistent with the public welfare paramount principle when harm has already materialized and the risk of continued harm is foreseeable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.8.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Principal Engineer R bears an affirmative ethical obligation to ensure that the multi-causal nature of the flooding harm is accurately and completely communicated to City C and affected parties. Firm IBM's independent analysis identified at least two contributing factors beyond the subdivision stormwater design: an undersized driveway culvert belonging to a property owner, and extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding constructed by a property owner that exacerbated runoff. Allowing the narrative to collapse into a single-cause attribution — treating the design deficiency as the sole cause — would constitute a distortion of the facts, which NSPE Code Section III.1.a explicitly prohibits. This obligation runs in both directions: Principal Engineer R must not overstate the design deficiency to deflect responsibility, but equally must not understate it by hiding behind third-party contributions. A complete and honest causal account serves the public interest, supports accurate remediation planning, and preserves the integrity of the engineering profession. The causation complexity does not diminish R's error acknowledgment obligation where a regulatory exceedance is confirmed; it contextualizes it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 4
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: I.4.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: A genuine tension exists between the principle of Objectivity in City Engineer J's plan review and the risk of unconscious loyalty to his former employer Firm BWJ. While the Board found no demonstrable conflict given the elapsed time, the ethical literature on cognitive bias — and the NSPE Code's emphasis on avoiding even the appearance of conflict under Section II.4.a — recognizes that prior professional and financial relationships can create dispositional tendencies toward favorable judgment that operate below the threshold of conscious awareness. The ethical significance of this tension is not that J was necessarily biased, but that the structural conditions for unconscious bias were present and were not mitigated by any disclosed recusal consideration or supervisory override. Objectivity as an ethical principle requires not only the absence of actual bias but also the implementation of procedural safeguards that make objectivity verifiable to external observers. The absence of such safeguards here — no disclosure, no independent co-review, no supervisory sign-off — means that even if J's review was substantively objective, it was not procedurally defensible as such.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.8.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: Principal Engineer R's obligation to independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before accepting its findings does not conflict with the error acknowledgment obligation — rather, the two obligations operate in sequence and at different levels of specificity. The error acknowledgment obligation under NSPE Code Section III.1.a does not require R to immediately concede every finding in IBM's report as correct; it requires R not to distort or suppress facts once errors are known. The appropriate ethical sequence is: (1) R should promptly and seriously engage with IBM's findings rather than dismissing them; (2) R should commission or conduct an independent verification of IBM's modeling assumptions and inputs; (3) if verification confirms the exceedance, R must acknowledge the error without qualification; and (4) if verification reveals methodological differences that explain the discrepancy, R must communicate those differences transparently rather than using them as a pretext to avoid accountability. The Board's recommendation that Firm BWJ re-review IBM's analysis is consistent with this sequence, but the Board should have been more explicit that the verification process cannot be used as an indefinite delay tactic when harm has already materialized and affected parties are waiting for remediation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The case illustrates a fundamental limitation of regulatory compliance as a proxy for the public welfare obligation. City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard is a minimum regulatory floor, not a guarantee of adequate protection for neighboring properties under all foreseeable post-development conditions. If Firm BWJ's design technically satisfied the regulatory standard on paper but the post-development flows substantially exceeded pre-development conditions as confirmed by IBM's independent analysis, then either the design did not actually satisfy the standard — making this a straightforward regulatory non-compliance — or the standard itself was insufficient to prevent the observed harm. In either case, NSPE Code Section I.1's mandate to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public imposes an obligation on Principal Engineer R that is not fully discharged by demonstrating regulatory compliance. Engineers directing stormwater-sensitive subdivision designs bear an obligation to consider whether the regulatory standard is adequate for the specific site conditions, and to flag to the client and City C when site-specific factors — such as proximity to vulnerable downstream properties — suggest that the minimum standard may be insufficient to protect public welfare.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 1
answers question4: 401
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301 and Q302 (deontological and consequentialist perspectives on City Engineer J): From a deontological standpoint, City Engineer J failed to fulfill his duty of impartiality not because bias was demonstrated, but because the duty of impartiality includes a procedural dimension — the obligation to structure one's review process so that impartiality is verifiable, not merely asserted. By reviewing and approving Firm BWJ's plans without disclosing his prior employment relationship, J denied City C the information necessary to independently assess whether his review was structurally sound. This is a deontological failure independent of outcomes. From a consequentialist standpoint, the downstream flooding harm — confirmed by IBM's independent analysis as substantially exceeding the regulatory standard — provides at least circumstantial evidence that the plan review process was insufficiently rigorous. Whether a more independent review would have caught the design deficiency cannot be determined with certainty, but the consequentialist calculus is unfavorable: the approval process produced a net negative outcome for neighboring property owners, and the structural conditions that might have prevented that outcome — independent review, disclosed conflict, supervisory oversight — were absent. Both ethical frameworks thus converge on the conclusion that J's approval process was ethically deficient, even if the Board's finding of no actual conflict is accepted.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.622992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 2
answers question4: 404
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.8.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q303 and Q304 (virtue ethics and deontological perspectives on Principal Engineer R): From a virtue ethics perspective, the virtue of candor — a core professional virtue for engineers — does not permit Principal Engineer R to treat the verification process as a shield against accountability. A candid engineer, upon learning that post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeded the regulatory standard and that neighboring properties had flooded, would immediately acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, initiate verification, and communicate transparently with City C and Developer G about the ongoing investigation — rather than waiting in silence for verification to conclude. Candor requires an honest orientation toward the facts as they are emerging, not merely a formal acknowledgment after all doubt is resolved. From a deontological perspective, Principal Engineer R bears an unconditional professional duty under NSPE Code Section III.8 to accept personal responsibility for the directed stormwater design. The fact that third-party property owner actions — paved areas and a large outbuilding — contributed to the flooding does not extinguish this duty; it contextualizes it. Where a regulatory non-compliance in the design is a necessary condition of the harm — meaning the harm would not have occurred in its observed form without the design deficiency — R's duty to acknowledge that deficiency is unconditional, even if the quantum of harm attributable to R's design versus third-party actions remains to be determined.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 403
answers question3: 104
answers question4: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.d.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q402 and Q403 (counterfactual questions on temporal threshold and proactive verification): If the temporal gap between City Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans had been very recent — less than one year — the Board's conclusion that no conflict of interest existed would almost certainly have changed. A very recent departure creates financial entanglements, ongoing professional loyalties, and reputational interdependencies that are not yet attenuated by time, and the appearance of impropriety under such circumstances would be severe enough to require recusal as a matter of professional ethics independent of any demonstrated bias. Regarding proactive post-construction verification: if Principal Engineer R had commissioned an independent post-construction stormwater verification study immediately after subdivision completion, the regulatory non-compliance would likely have been identified before any flooding event occurred, enabling remediation before harm materialized. While such proactive verification is not explicitly required by City C's subdivision regulations, it represents a best-practice ethical obligation for engineers directing stormwater-sensitive designs in proximity to vulnerable downstream properties. NSPE Code Section I.1's public welfare paramount principle, read in conjunction with Section III.2.d's sustainable development obligation, supports the conclusion that engineers should not treat regulatory approval as the terminal point of their public welfare obligation — particularly where post-construction conditions may differ from design assumptions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 2
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.8.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q404: The counterfactual question of whether Firm BWJ's stormwater design alone — absent the third-party property owner modifications — would have caused the observed flooding is analytically critical to calibrating Principal Engineer R's error acknowledgment obligation. If the design deficiency was a necessary but insufficient cause of the flooding — meaning the flooding would not have occurred at the observed severity without both the design deficiency and the third-party modifications — then R's obligation is to acknowledge the design deficiency clearly while simultaneously ensuring that the multi-causal account is accurately communicated. R's acknowledgment obligation is not diminished by shared causation, but the scope of remediation responsibility may be appropriately apportioned. Conversely, if the design deficiency alone would have been sufficient to cause flooding even without the third-party modifications, then the third-party contributions are aggravating factors that do not reduce R's core responsibility. In either scenario, Principal Engineer R cannot ethically use the third-party contributions as a basis for avoiding or delaying acknowledgment of the confirmed regulatory exceedance. The ethical obligation is to acknowledge what is known — the regulatory non-compliance — while being transparent about what remains uncertain — the precise causal contribution of each factor to the observed harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 101
answers question4: 1
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Objectivity in plan review and Conflict of Interest Recusal — as applied to City Engineer J — was resolved by the Board through a temporal mitigation framework rather than a categorical recusal rule. The Board implicitly held that the passage of sufficient time between J's departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans attenuated the conflict to a level where objectivity could be presumed intact. However, this resolution is analytically incomplete because it conflates the absence of demonstrable bias with the satisfaction of the appearance-of-conflict standard embedded in Code provision II.4.a. Even where actual bias is absent, the principle of Conflict of Interest Recusal retains independent force as a transparency and public-trust obligation. The more principled resolution would have been to hold that J could proceed with review only if he had proactively disclosed his prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers, thereby allowing the institutional client — not J alone — to determine whether recusal was warranted. By omitting this disclosure requirement from its analysis, the Board subordinated the appearance-of-conflict dimension of the Objectivity principle to a purely temporal heuristic, leaving an unstated and potentially under-protective threshold governing revolving-door scenarios in public engineering roles.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 8
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 102
answers question4: 303
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.8.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Error Acknowledgment Obligation and Professional Accountability — as applied to Principal Engineer R — was resolved by the Board through a sequenced verification framework: R must first independently confirm whether Firm IBM's analysis reveals a genuine error before accepting findings that carry significant legal and reputational consequences. This resolution correctly recognizes that the duty to acknowledge errors under Code provision III.1.a presupposes that an error has in fact been made, and that professional accountability includes the responsibility to verify before conceding. However, the Board's sequencing framework must not be permitted to become a mechanism for indefinite deferral. The principle of Public Welfare Paramount, codified in Code provision I.1, operates as a temporal constraint on the verification process: where flooding harm to neighboring residents is already confirmed and ongoing, the verification phase must be conducted with urgency, and any interim risk-mitigation measures — such as notifying City C of the potential deficiency — should not await the conclusion of internal review. The synthesis of these principles yields a two-track obligation: R must pursue independent verification diligently and in good faith, while simultaneously discharging a proactive risk disclosure duty to the client and affected parties commensurate with the severity of the realized harm.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 a
cites provision: III 2 d
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 2
answers question4: 304
answers question5: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
cited provision4: I.4.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between Regulatory Compliance Verification and Public Welfare Paramount — the deepest structural tension in this case — was not explicitly resolved by the Board but is illuminated by the flooding outcome. Firm BWJ's design may have satisfied the City C 25-year recurrence interval standard on paper at the time of approval, yet post-development flows were found by Firm IBM to substantially exceed pre-development conditions, resulting in actual harm to neighboring residents. This divergence reveals that regulatory compliance, while necessary, is not ethically sufficient as a proxy for the public welfare obligation. The principle of Public Welfare Paramount, as the paramount canon of the NSPE Code, requires engineers to exercise independent professional judgment about whether a design that technically clears a regulatory threshold will in practice protect the public from foreseeable harm — including harm arising from reasonably anticipated post-development land use changes in the surrounding area. The case further teaches that where causation is genuinely shared between a design deficiency and third-party contributing factors, the engineer's ethical obligation is not diminished but is instead bifurcated: Principal Engineer R bears a duty to acknowledge the design's contribution to the harm while also ensuring that the multi-causal nature of the flooding is accurately communicated to City C and affected parties, so that remediation efforts are proportionate and correctly targeted. Allowing a design deficiency to be treated as the sole cause when third-party actions materially contributed would itself constitute a distortion of facts prohibited by Code provision III.1.a.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Avoidance — City Engineer J Approval of Former Employer
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City Engineer J's prior role as a principal at Firm BWJ created a conflict of interest when he served as the approving authority for Firm BWJ's subdivision design submissions to City C.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: City Engineer J
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: City Engineer J was constrained by ethics code provisions from exercising official approval authority over engineering work submitted by Firm BWJ, his former employer, without first disclosing the prior employment relationship and either recusing himself or obtaining a formal determination that the relationship did not compromise his impartiality.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Case 14-8
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
temporalscope: During the period of administrative review and approval of Firm BWJ's City C subdivision plans
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.754897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard - City Engineer J
type: ConflictofInterestDisqualificationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional ethics norms and BER precedent
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard as applied to City Engineer J's prior employment with Firm BWJ
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard
sourcetext: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J's former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised
textreferences: The first ethical issue has to do with whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J's former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
usedby: Board of Ethical Review analyzing City Engineer J's ethical status
usedincontext: Applied to evaluate whether City Engineer J's prior employment with Firm BWJ ethically disqualifies J from reviewing and approving design documents submitted by BWJ to City C; the Board concludes that if the transition occurred at least one year prior to the subdivision contract, no disqualifying conflict exists
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.752348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard - City Engineer J Review
type: ConflictofInterestDisqualificationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on conflict of interest; applicable municipal ethics rules
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional and Municipal Standards for Conflict of Interest Recusal in Engineering Review
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ
usedby: City Engineer J, City C administration, property owners raising ethical complaints
usedincontext: Governs whether City Engineer J, as a former principal of Firm BWJ, was ethically permitted to conduct the administrative review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans without recusal or disclosure
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.748845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should City Engineer J recuse himself from reviewing and approving Firm BWJ's subdivision plans — or at minimum proactively disclose his prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers — given that his transition from BWJ to City C may create an appearance of conflict of interest under NSPE Code Section II.4.a?
focus: City Engineer J reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ, given J's prior principal-level employment at BWJ and the temporal proximity of the transition
option1: Review and approve BWJ's subdivision plans without disclosing prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers
option2: Proactively disclose prior principal-level employment at BWJ to City C decision-makers before undertaking any review, and allow City C to determine whether to assign review to an independent municipal engineer
option3: Recuse entirely from reviewing and approving any plans submitted by Firm BWJ and delegate approval authority to an independent reviewer
role label: City Engineer J
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Principal Engineer R independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before formally acknowledging the stormwater design error, and what proactive disclosure and remediation obligations does R bear toward Developer G, City C, and affected neighboring property owners once the error is confirmed — particularly given that IBM identified third-party contributing factors alongside the design deficiency?
focus: Principal Engineer R's obligations upon learning that Firm IBM's independent analysis — corroborated by actual post-construction flooding — indicates the BWJ stormwater design produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's regulatory requirements
option1: Independently verify IBM's analysis against original BWJ stormwater calculations, and upon confirmation of error formally acknowledge the design deficiency, proactively disclose findings to Developer G and City C, communicate the full multi-causal picture including third-party contributing factors, convene the BWJ risk management team, and design and implement a corrective stormwater system
option2: Defer all acknowledgment and communication until internal verification is fully complete, without providing any interim disclosure to City C or affected property owners during the verification period
option3: Acknowledge the stormwater design error immediately upon receiving IBM's report without conducting independent verification, accepting IBM's findings as dispositive without checking them against original design calculations
role label: Principal Engineer R
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should City Engineer J review and approve subdivision plans prepared by Firm BWJ — his former employer — without disclosing his prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers, given that his departure was not recent?
focus: City Engineer J: Objectivity and Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Plan Review of Former Employer's Work
option1: Proactively disclose prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ to City C decision-makers before reviewing subdivision plans, and allow City C to determine whether to assign review to J or an independent reviewer
option2: Review and approve Firm BWJ's subdivision plans in the ordinary course without disclosing prior employment relationship, relying on elapsed time since departure as sufficient attenuation of any conflict
role label: City Engineer J
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Principal Engineer R immediately acknowledge the stormwater design error and proactively communicate the multi-causal nature of the flooding harm to City C and affected parties, or should R first independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before making any acknowledgment — and in either case, how must R handle the third-party contributing factors identified by IBM?
focus: Principal Engineer R: Error Acknowledgment, Independent Verification, and Multi-Causal Disclosure After Stormwater Design Non-Compliance Is Confirmed
option1: Independently re-review Firm IBM's analysis to verify whether a design error exists, while simultaneously notifying City C of the potential deficiency and ensuring affected property owners receive timely information — then formally acknowledge the confirmed error and communicate the full multi-causal account of the flooding to all affected parties
option2: Defer all communication and acknowledgment until internal verification of IBM's analysis is fully complete, without interim notification to City C or affected property owners
option3: Immediately and unconditionally accept IBM's findings as correct, acknowledge sole design responsibility for the flooding, and initiate remediation without independently verifying IBM's methodology or communicating the third-party contributing factors to City C and affected parties
role label: Principal Engineer R
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.623997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Principal Engineer R treat satisfaction of City C's 25-year recurrence interval regulatory standard as fully discharging Firm BWJ's public welfare obligation in the stormwater design, or does the Public Welfare Paramount principle impose an independent obligation to exercise site-specific professional judgment about whether the minimum standard is adequate to protect neighboring properties from foreseeable flooding harm?
focus: Firm BWJ / Principal Engineer R: Regulatory Compliance Verification vs. Public Welfare Paramount in Stormwater Design — Whether Satisfying the 25-Year Standard Discharges the Engineer's Full Ethical Obligation
option1: Design the stormwater system to satisfy City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard and treat regulatory approval as fully discharging the public welfare obligation, without independently assessing whether the minimum standard is adequate to protect neighboring downstream properties under foreseeable post-development conditions
option2: Design the stormwater system to satisfy the regulatory standard while exercising independent site-specific professional judgment about whether the minimum standard adequately protects neighboring downstream properties — flagging to Developer G and City C when site conditions suggest the regulatory floor may be insufficient, and recommending enhanced design criteria or post-construction verification where warranted
role label: Principal Engineer R
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Developer G Developer Client
type: DeveloperClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private developer', 'project': 'New subdivision in City C, State Q'}
caseinvolvement: Private developer who retained Firm BWJ to develop subdivision plans for a new subdivision in City C, bearing authority over project scope and subject to compliance with local stormwater regulations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Developer Client
sourcetext: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision
textreferences: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.749583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Developer G retaining Firm BWJ / Engineer R developing subdivision plans after Engineer J joining City C as City Engineer
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: Developer G retains Firm BWJ, under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision... The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract.
from entity text: Developer G retaining Firm BWJ / Engineer R developing subdivision plans
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Engineer J joining City C as City Engineer
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: Engineer J joining City C as City Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Developer Retains Firm BWJ
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: private developer/client
foreseen unintended effects: Possible conflict-of-interest scrutiny during plan review
foreseen unintended effects: Potential appearance of impropriety given Engineer J's prior BWJ affiliation
fulfills obligation text: Contractual right to select engineering firm of choice
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to retain licensed engineer for design work
guided by principle text: Avoidance of arrangements that undermine impartial review
guided by principle text: Fair dealing with public regulatory bodies
has agent: Developer G
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure qualified engineering firm to produce approvable subdivision design for City C
requires capability text: Contractor/engineer selection judgment
requires capability text: Due diligence on potential conflicts of interest in regulatory relationships
temporal marker: Pre-construction, project initiation phase
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Implicit duty not to exploit or encourage conflict-of-interest relationships in regulatory review processes
within competence: true
comment: Developer G made a deliberate business decision to retain Firm BWJ, under Principal Engineer R, to design the subdivision in City C, selecting a firm whose former principal now served as the reviewing City Engineer.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Developer Retains Firm BWJ → IBM Confirms Design Non-Compliance
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Developer G made a deliberate business decision to retain Firm BWJ, under Principal Engineer R, to design the subdivision, which produced the stormwater management plans subsequently confirmed by IBM to be substantially non-compliant
cause: Developer Retains Firm BWJ
counterfactual: Had Developer G retained a different firm, or had BWJ under R produced compliant designs, IBM's review would not have confirmed design non-compliance as the cause of flooding; however, Developer G's selection of BWJ is a more distal cause, as the proximate design responsibility rests with R
effect: IBM Confirms Design Non-Compliance
necessary factors: BWJ's production of non-compliant stormwater management plans
necessary factors: Developer G's selection of BWJ as the design firm
necessary factors: IBM's independent technical review confirming the non-compliance
necessary factors: R's role as principal engineer responsible for the stormwater calculations
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Developer G (firm selection) and Principal Engineer R (design execution), shared
sufficient factors: Developer's firm selection + R's design errors + absence of pre-construction correction = confirmed non-compliant design
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer A's employer transition (Case 14-8) during active project legal review (Case 14-8)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Unlike Case 14-8 where the transition literally happened in the midst of the project for which the Board was rendering an opinion
from entity text: Engineer A's employer transition (Case 14-8)
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: active project legal review (Case 14-8)
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: active project legal review Case 14-8
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer J Prior Employment Conflict Assessment
type: PriorEmploymentApprovalConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer J assumed the City Engineer role through the period of reviewing BWJ's subdivision design documents
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City Engineer J
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Members of the public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J's former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
stateclass: Prior Employment Approval Conflict State
subject: City Engineer J's authority to review and approve design documents submitted by former employer Firm BWJ
terminatedby: BER determination that sufficient temporal gap (assumed at least one year) mitigates the conflict, conditionally permitting Engineer J to proceed
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J's former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
textreferences: whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ
triggeringevent: Public perception of conflict of interest arising from Engineer J's former employment with Firm BWJ, combined with Engineer J's exercise of approval authority over BWJ's submitted plans
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.753452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ before subdivision project contract with Developer G
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract.
from entity text: Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: subdivision project contract with Developer G
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: subdivision project contract with Developer G
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer J's employment at Firm BWJ before Engineer J's role as City Engineer at City C
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ... the transition is implied to have been earlier, possibly many years ago.
from entity text: Engineer J's employment at Firm BWJ
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer J's role as City Engineer at City C
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer J s role as City Engineer at City C
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer R Post-Approval Error Correction Constraint — IBM Independent Analysis
type: Post-ApprovalErrorCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's independent hydrological modeling found storm runoff flows substantially larger than pre-development conditions for the 25-year storm event, directly contradicting the compliance basis of Engineer R's original subdivision stormwater design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R / Firm BWJ
constraintclass: Post-Approval Error Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon receipt of IBM's independent modeling confirming that the subdivision stormwater design produces post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard, Principal Engineer R was ethically constrained to acknowledge the calculation errors, revise the affected work product, and take affirmative corrective action, and was prohibited from continuing to defend the original design as compliant.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; NSPE Code Section III.8; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5; BER Case 93-8
sourcetext: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
temporalscope: Upon and after receipt of IBM's independent analysis confirming regulatory non-compliance
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.755040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer R Post-Project Harm Materialized
type: Post-ProjectHarmMaterializedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of subdivision construction through the present, as flooding damage has been documented and independent analysis confirms regulatory exceedance
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Firm IBM
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded
stateclass: Post-Project Harm Materialized State
subject: Principal Engineer R's subdivision stormwater design and resulting flooding of adjacent properties
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — pending acknowledgment, risk management engagement, and corrective design implementation
textreferences: Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement
triggeringevent: Adjacent property flooding following subdivision construction, combined with IBM's independent modeling confirming post-development runoff exceeds pre-development conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.753772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer R Public Safety Paramount Constraint — Stormwater Design Deficiency
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Post-construction flooding of neighboring properties confirmed that the subdivision stormwater design failed to meet the City C regulatory standard, creating ongoing public safety risk to neighboring residents and property owners.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R / Firm BWJ
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Principal Engineer R was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to ensure that the subdivision stormwater design did not create unmitigated flooding risks to neighboring properties, and upon confirmation of regulatory non-compliance through IBM's independent analysis, was prohibited from allowing the deficient design to remain uncorrected when neighboring residents faced ongoing flooding harm.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; NSPE Code Canon 1
sourcetext: After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
temporalscope: Throughout the design, approval, and post-construction phases of the City C subdivision project
textreferences: After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
textreferences: Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: Property owners complain that the flooding damage caused water damage to their homes
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.755180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Constraint — City C 25-Year Stormwater Standard
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's independent analysis confirmed that the subdivision design produced post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, establishing that the regulatory constraint was violated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R / Firm BWJ
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were bound by City C's subdivision regulation requiring that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions, constraining the subdivision stormwater design to achieve this quantitative performance standard as a non-negotiable regulatory requirement.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: City C Subdivision Stormwater Regulation — 25-Year Recurrence Interval Standard
sourcetext: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
temporalscope: During design development and throughout the life of the subdivision
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
textreferences: Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.755314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer R Regulatory Standard Exceedance Confirmed
type: RegulatoryStandardExceedanceConfirmedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of IBM's independent analysis through the present
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Firm IBM
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
stateclass: Regulatory Standard Exceedance Confirmed State
subject: IBM's independent modeling confirming that Engineer R's subdivision design produces post-development runoff exceeding City C's pre-development peak flow requirements
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — pending Engineer R's verification, acknowledgment, and corrective action
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
triggeringevent: IBM's independent modeling analysis showing stormwater runoff flows larger after construction than before, in conflict with City C's regulatory requirement for peak flows not exceeding pre-development conditions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.753952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer R's stormwater plan development before City Engineer J's administrative review and approval
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J and are released for bidding and construction.
from entity text: Engineer R's stormwater plan development
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: City Engineer J's administrative review and approval
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: City Engineer J s administrative review and approv
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint BWJ Subdivision Stormwater City C
type: EnvironmentalRegulatoryComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City C's stormwater regulation established a quantitative peak flow performance standard; IBM's independent modeling and actual flooding experience confirmed the subdivision design failed to meet this standard, triggering remediation obligations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R
constraintclass: Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were bound by City C's stormwater regulation requiring that post-development peak runoff not exceed pre-development peak runoff at the 25-year recurrence interval — a binding regulatory constraint that the subdivision design was required to satisfy and that IBM's independent analysis confirmed was violated by the as-designed and as-constructed stormwater system.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: City C Subdivision Stormwater Regulation — 25-Year Recurrence Interval Standard; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
temporalscope: From design commencement through construction completion and post-construction performance verification
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.762727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint — Engineer R Defense of Stormwater Design
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's independent hydrological modeling directly contradicted the compliance basis of Engineer R's original stormwater calculations, constraining Engineer R from continuing to assert design compliance as a grounded professional opinion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R / Firm BWJ
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Principal Engineer R was constrained from publicly or professionally defending the subdivision stormwater design as compliant with City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard after IBM's independent modeling provided credible technical evidence to the contrary, prohibiting continued assertion of compliance as a professional opinion when the factual basis for that opinion had been materially undermined by independent analysis.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; BER Case 16-7
sourcetext: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
temporalscope: Upon and after receipt of IBM's independent analysis confirming regulatory non-compliance
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.756532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm BWJ Corrective Stormwater Remediation Design
type: CorrectiveStormwaterRemediationDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Corrective Stormwater Remediation Design Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm BWJ needed technical capability to design and specify a workable corrective stormwater management system that would bring the subdivision into compliance with City C's post-development peak flow requirements
casecontext: Firm BWJ was obligated to design and implement a corrective stormwater management system following confirmation of the original design's non-compliance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to identify, design, and construct a workable corrective stormwater management system serving the citizens of City C
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm BWJ
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
textreferences: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm BWJ Stormwater Regulatory Compliance
type: StormwaterRegulatoryComplianceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm BWJ, as the engineering firm responsible for subdivision stormwater design, was required to possess organizational capability to verify regulatory compliance of stormwater designs before submission and sealing, but the firm's design was found to violate City C's post-development peak flow requirements.
casecontext: Firm BWJ prepared subdivision plans under Principal Engineer R's direction that were found to produce post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, violating City C subdivision regulations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by the independent finding of substantial post-development runoff exceedance and the driveway culvert capacity deficiency identified by Firm IBM.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm BWJ
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
textreferences: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.756991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm BWJ Workable Corrective Stormwater Design Implementation City C
type: WorkableCorrectiveDesignImplementationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Actual flooding of adjacent properties and IBM's independent modeling confirmed regulatory non-compliance; acknowledgment of error alone was insufficient — a workable corrective design was required to restore compliance and protect public welfare
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R
constraintclass: Workable Corrective Design Implementation Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were constrained to proceed beyond mere error acknowledgment to the identification, design, and construction of a workable corrective stormwater management system that brings the City C subdivision into compliance with the 25-year recurrence interval peak flow standard and protects neighboring properties from continued flooding harm.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.1.a and III.8; City C Stormwater Regulation; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C
temporalscope: From error acknowledgment through completion of corrective design construction and regulatory compliance verification
textreferences: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.762153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM Independent Stormwater Modeling
type: IndependentStormwaterModelingandAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm IBM demonstrated expert-level capability to conduct independent hydrological modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision stormwater design, producing findings that identified substantial post-development runoff exceedances and downstream infrastructure deficiencies.
casecontext: City C engaged Firm IBM as a third-party reviewer following flooding complaints; IBM conducted independent stormwater modeling that confirmed regulatory non-compliance in the BWJ design.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Firm IBM performed independent modeling and analysis finding storm runoff flows substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after subdivision completion, and identified the driveway culvert capacity deficiency.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm IBM
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.757563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM Multi-Causal Flood Attribution
type: Multi-CausalFloodAttributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Causal Flood Attribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm IBM demonstrated advanced capability to identify and apportion multiple contributing causes of post-construction flooding, distinguishing between design deficiencies in the BWJ stormwater design, downstream infrastructure capacity deficiencies, and post-construction modifications by property owners that exacerbated flooding.
casecontext: Firm IBM's independent review identified multiple contributing causes of flooding, enabling a nuanced causal attribution that distinguished design deficiencies from third-party contributions to the flooding problem.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: IBM's analysis identified three distinct contributing causes: BWJ's stormwater design producing excess runoff, a driveway culvert with insufficient capacity, and property owner construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding that exacerbated flooding potential.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm IBM
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential.
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.757700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM Objective Complete Reporting Independent Review
type: IndependentStormwaterModelingandAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm IBM needed technical capability to conduct independent hydrological modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision stormwater design, performing pre-development and post-development runoff calculations sufficient to verify or refute compliance with City C's regulatory peak flow requirements
casecontext: Firm IBM was engaged by City C to conduct objective technical review of the subdivision design following flooding complaints
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Independent stormwater modeling and analysis confirming that post-development runoff exceeded pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm IBM
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
textreferences: actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM Watershed Protection Design Review
type: WatershedProtectionDesignCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Watershed Protection Design Competence
capabilitystatement: Firm IBM demonstrated technical capability to evaluate stormwater management systems for adequacy in protecting downstream properties and infrastructure, including assessing whether subdivision designs adequately managed runoff to prevent flooding of adjacent properties.
casecontext: Firm IBM conducted independent review of the BWJ subdivision stormwater design following flooding complaints, demonstrating watershed protection design competence through its identification of design deficiencies and downstream infrastructure inadequacies.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: IBM's independent analysis identified that the BWJ subdivision design produced post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, demonstrating competence to evaluate stormwater management system adequacy.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm IBM
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.758255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM independent review and analysis after subdivision construction completion
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
from entity text: Firm IBM independent review and analysis
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: subdivision construction completion
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: subdivision construction completion
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Flooding Property Owners Affected Property Owner Stakeholder
type: AffectedPropertyOwnerStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'harm_type': 'Flooding and water damage to homes', 'complaint_type': 'Technical (stormwater design deficiency) and ethical (conflict of interest)', 'contributing_factor': "One property owner's own paved areas and outbuilding construction exacerbated flooding"}
caseinvolvement: Property owners in the vicinity of the subdivision who experienced flooding and water damage to their homes following subdivision completion, who filed complaints with City C regarding both the technical adequacy of the stormwater design and the ethical conflict of interest of City Engineer J. One property owner's driveway culvert was found to have insufficient capacity; another property owner's own construction was found to have exacerbated flooding.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'City Engineer J approval decision'}
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Firm BWJ subdivision design'}
relationships: {'type': 'complainant_to', 'target': 'City C'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Affected Property Owner Stakeholder
sourcetext: properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding
textreferences: Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ
textreferences: Property owners complain that the flooding damage caused water damage to their homes
textreferences: properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.750198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

IBM Confirms Design Non-Compliance
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_to_Correct_Documented_Deficiency
activates constraint: Mandatory_Remediation_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Accountability_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Design failure shifts from alleged to confirmed; all parties now have constructive knowledge of the deficiency; continued inaction becomes affirmative ethical and legal violation; remediation obligation is immediate and non-negotiable
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_C_Must_Require_Remediation
creates obligation: Compensate_or_Remediate_Affected_Neighbors
creates obligation: J_Conflict_of_Interest_Allegation_Must_Be_Formally_Addressed
creates obligation: Professional_Licensing_Board_Notification_Consideration
creates obligation: R_Must_Acknowledge_and_Correct_Design_Failure
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After City C engages IBM; during independent review phase
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: critical
comment: Independent reviewer Firm IBM determined through technical analysis that post-development stormwater runoff flows were substantially larger than pre-development flows for the 25-year, two-hour storm event, directly confirming that Engineer R's design failed to comply with City C's stated requirement. This finding transformed the flooding from an alleged harm into a documented engineering failure.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

IBM Confirms Design Non-Compliance → R Acknowledges Error and Remediates
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Following IBM's confirmation of substantial stormwater design non-compliance, Principal Engineer R formally acknowledged the design error and undertook remediation of the stormwater system
cause: IBM Confirms Design Non-Compliance
counterfactual: Without IBM's independent confirmation, R might have contested the flooding causation or attributed it to other factors; IBM's findings created the evidentiary and professional basis that made acknowledgment and remediation the necessary response
effect: R Acknowledges Error and Remediates
necessary factors: IBM's independent and authoritative technical confirmation of the design deficiency
necessary factors: R's professional obligation as a licensed engineer to correct identified errors
necessary factors: The absence of a credible technical basis for R to contest IBM's findings
necessary factors: The formal, documented nature of IBM's findings creating professional and legal accountability for R
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Principal Engineer R
sufficient factors: Authoritative independent confirmation of error + professional licensing obligations + legal/reputational exposure = R's acknowledgment and remediation commitment
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

IBM Identifies Contributing Factors
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Causation_Determination_Constraint
activates constraint: Proportional_Liability_Assessment_Constraint
causes state change: Causation picture becomes multi-factorial; responsibility for flooding distributed across subdivision design failure, municipal approval failure, and independent actions of affected property owners themselves; remediation and liability analysis must account for proportional contribution
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Address_Undersized_Culvert_as_Separate_Remediation_Item
creates obligation: Incorporate_Shared_Causation_into_Remediation_and_Liability_Analysis
creates obligation: Notify_Property_Owner_of_Their_Contributing_Construction
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Concurrent with IBM design non-compliance finding; during independent review phase
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: medium
comment: In addition to confirming the primary design deficiency, IBM's review found that one complaining property owner had an undersized driveway culvert and that another property owner had constructed paved areas and an outbuilding that independently exacerbated flooding on their own and neighboring properties. These findings introduced shared causation into the harm analysis.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

IBM Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis
type: IndependentEngineeringReviewStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Firm IBM (independent engineering firm)
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Firm IBM Third-Party Independent Engineering Review of City C Subdivision Stormwater Design
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Independent Engineering Review Standard
sourcetext: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
textreferences: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event
usedby: City C, property owners, ethical review of Firm BWJ's design adequacy
usedincontext: Third-party independent engineering review commissioned by City C following flooding complaints, using hydrological modeling to assess whether BWJ's design met the 25-year recurrence interval standard. Findings revealed substantially larger post-development runoff flows and insufficient culvert capacity.
version: Post-construction review
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.749005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

IBM's confirmation of design compliance failure after Engineer R's original stormwater plan development
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: IBM's analysis confirmed that post-development stormwater runoff flows were substantially larger than pre-development flows for the 25-year, two-hour storm event, indicating a design compliance failure.
from entity text: IBM's confirmation of design compliance failure
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: Engineer R's original stormwater plan development
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: Engineer R s original stormwater plan development
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

II.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

III.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

III.2.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

III.8.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Independent Engineering Review - IBM Analysis
type: IndependentEngineeringReviewStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Firm IBM (independent engineering firm)
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Independent stormwater runoff analysis conducted by Firm IBM reviewing BWJ's subdivision design
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Independent Engineering Review Standard
sourcetext: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8
textreferences: The second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R's actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in establishing the factual predicate for Principal Engineer R's error acknowledgment obligations
usedincontext: IBM's independent modeling analysis provides the technical basis for asserting that Principal Engineer R's stormwater calculations contain errors resulting in post-development flows exceeding pre-development conditions; triggers Principal Engineer R's obligation to verify, acknowledge, and correct the design deficiency
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.752658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

J Departs BWJ for City
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: former BWJ Principal, subsequently City Engineer of City C
foreseen unintended effects: Ambiguity about adequacy of cooling-off period to neutralize conflict
foreseen unintended effects: Future conflict of interest if BWJ submits plans to City C for review
fulfills obligation text: Lawful career transition
fulfills obligation text: No specific NSPE canon prohibits changing employers per se
guided by principle text: Avoidance of conflict of interest (NSPE Code III.2)
guided by principle text: Impartiality in public-sector role
guided by principle text: Public welfare primacy (NSPE Code I.1)
has agent: Engineer J
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Career advancement or public-sector transition; acceptance of municipal engineering role
raises obligation text: Duty to proactively plan for recusal from matters involving former employer (NSPE Code III.2.a, Engineers shall not be influenced by conflicting outside interests)
raises obligation text: Prospective duty to avoid situations creating conflicts of interest (NSPE Code III.2. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their regular work or that may impair their judgment)
requires capability text: Ability to establish prospective recusal procedures
requires capability text: Awareness of conflict-of-interest provisions in NSPE Code
requires capability text: Municipal engineering administrative competence
temporal marker: At least one year before subdivision project commenced
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: City Engineer J voluntarily left private firm BWJ to accept the municipal City Engineer position with City C, creating a structural conflict-of-interest scenario for any future BWJ work submitted to City C for review.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

J Reviews and Approves BWJ Plans
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: City Engineer, City C; former principal of Firm BWJ
foreseen unintended effects: Appearance of conflict of interest due to prior BWJ affiliation
foreseen unintended effects: Potential failure to detect design errors due to compromised impartiality
foreseen unintended effects: Public trust damage if flooding occurred and conflict was later scrutinized
foreseen unintended effects: Risk that prior professional relationship could unconsciously bias technical review
fulfills obligation text: Formal administrative completion of plan review function
fulfills obligation text: Nominal compliance with municipal approval process timeline
guided by principle text: Conflict-of-interest avoidance (NSPE Code III.2)
guided by principle text: Protection of public safety and welfare (NSPE Code I.1)
guided by principle text: Public trust and impartiality in public-sector role
guided by principle text: Transparency and disclosure
has agent: Engineer J
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Discharge municipal plan-review duty and authorize subdivision construction to proceed
requires capability text: Conflict-of-interest identification and recusal judgment
requires capability text: Municipal plan review administrative procedures
requires capability text: Stormwater hydrology review competence
temporal marker: Pre-construction, plan review and approval phase
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation text: Duty to disclose prior employment relationship to City C supervisors or governing body
violates obligation text: Duty to recuse from review or arrange independent review of BWJ submissions
violates obligation text: NSPE Code I.4. Engineers shall act in a manner that upholds and enhances the honor, integrity, and dignity of the profession
violates obligation text: NSPE Code II.4. Engineers shall act as faithful agents of their employer (City C) by ensuring impartial review
violates obligation text: NSPE Code III.2. Engineers shall not be influenced by conflicting interests; shall disclose all known or potential conflicts
violates obligation text: NSPE Code III.2.a, Engineers in public service shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private engineering practice
within competence: true
comment: City Engineer J decided to conduct the administrative plan review and formally approve the subdivision stormwater plans submitted by his former employer Firm BWJ, without documented recusal, disclosure of the prior employment relationship, or referral to an independent reviewer.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

J Reviews and Approves BWJ Plans → Neighboring Properties Flood
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: City Engineer J decided to conduct the administrative plan review and formally approve the subdivision plans despite a material conflict of interest arising from his prior employment at Firm BWJ
cause: J Reviews and Approves BWJ Plans
counterfactual: Had J recused himself and an unconflicted engineer conducted a rigorous technical review, the stormwater design deficiencies would likely have been identified and corrected prior to construction, preventing the flooding
effect: Neighboring Properties Flood
necessary factors: Absence of independent technical scrutiny that recusal would have mandated
necessary factors: J's decision to personally conduct the review rather than recuse himself
necessary factors: J's prior professional relationship with R and BWJ creating a conflict of interest
necessary factors: The underlying design non-compliance in R's plans requiring detection
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City Engineer J
sufficient factors: Conflicted reviewer + non-compliant plans + no compensating independent review = approval of deficient design proceeding to construction
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.1.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Professional Obligation III.1.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in directing Principal Engineer R's obligations
usedincontext: Directly invoked as the normative basis requiring Principal Engineer R to acknowledge errors in the stormwater runoff calculations and take corrective action
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.752069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.8
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Professional Obligation III.8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
textreferences: Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in directing Principal Engineer R's obligations
usedincontext: Directly invoked as the normative basis affirming that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, supporting the obligation of Principal Engineer R to address the stormwater design deficiency
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.752205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ
textreferences: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ
usedby: Principal Engineer R, Firm BWJ, City Engineer J
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Principal Engineer R's obligations in subdivision design, Firm BWJ's professional conduct, and City Engineer J's conflict of interest obligations as a former BWJ principal now approving BWJ's work
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.748486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Neighboring Properties Flood
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_to_Disclose_Known_Deficiency
activates constraint: Harm_Mitigation_Obligation
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Latent design deficiency becomes manifest harm; case transitions from administrative/technical matter to active public safety and legal liability situation; affected third parties now have standing to demand accountability
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Disclose_Potential_Conflict_of_Interest_in_Approval_Process
creates obligation: Engage_Independent_Review
creates obligation: Investigate_Cause_of_Flooding
creates obligation: Notify_Affected_Parties_of_Risk
creates obligation: Remediate_Design_Deficiency
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After subdivision construction completion; triggers complaint phase
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: high
comment: Following completion of the subdivision, neighboring properties experienced flooding events attributable to increased stormwater runoff from the newly developed site. This flooding caused property damage and personal harm to residents who had no role in the subdivision's design or approval.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Non-Deception Constraint — City Engineer J Approval Without Recusal Disclosure
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City Engineer J's approval of his former employer's plans without disclosure of the prior employment relationship created an appearance of independent review that was materially misleading to City C and the public.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: City Engineer J
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: City Engineer J was constrained by ethics code non-deception provisions from conducting and presenting the administrative approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision plans without disclosing his prior employment relationship as a principal of Firm BWJ, as such non-disclosure created a misleading impression that the approval was conducted by a disinterested reviewing authority.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; Non-Deception (Constraint)
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
temporalscope: At the time of administrative review and approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision plans
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.756395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Post-Subdivision Flooding Harm to Neighboring Properties
type: Post-ProjectHarmMaterializedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of subdivision construction through ongoing flooding complaints and third-party review
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City Engineer J
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Neighboring property owners
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
stateclass: Post-Project Harm Materialized State
subject: Completed subdivision design by Firm BWJ under Principal Engineer R
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — harm and investigation are ongoing in the facts presented
textreferences: After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
textreferences: Property owners complain that the flooding damage caused water damage to their homes
triggeringevent: Properties in the vicinity of the completed subdivision experienced flooding causing water damage to homes
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.750531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Causation Complexity Disclosure IBM Analysis Stormwater
type: CausationComplexityDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's independent review identified multiple contributing factors to flooding beyond the subdivision design alone; accurate multi-cause reporting was required to enable equitable fault allocation and effective corrective design
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R and Firm IBM
constraintclass: Causation Complexity Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: In reporting on the stormwater design deficiency and resulting flooding, both Engineer R and Firm IBM were constrained to disclose all identified contributing factors — including the subdivision design deficiency, the insufficient culvert, and third-party property owner actions — prohibiting presentation of a single-cause narrative when the technical evidence supported multiple contributing causes.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; IBM Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis; Qualitative Risk Assessment — Flooding Causation Analysis
sourcetext: IBM's review included assessment of multiple contributing factors to flooding, including the subdivision design deficiencies, the insufficient culvert
temporalscope: During and following IBM's independent analysis and throughout the fault allocation and remediation process
textreferences: IBM's review included assessment of multiple contributing factors to flooding, including the subdivision design deficiencies, the insufficient culvert
textreferences: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.762324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Design Error Acknowledgment
type: DesignDeficiencyCausalAttributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R, as the Design Error Acknowledging Engineer, was required to possess the capability to identify, analyze, and accurately attribute the root causes of the stormwater design deficiencies found by Firm IBM, and to communicate this causal attribution honestly to City C and affected parties.
casecontext: Principal Engineer R is identified as a Design Error Acknowledging Engineer confronted with Firm IBM's findings that the BWJ stormwater design produced post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C regulations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The case presents Principal Engineer R in the role of Design Error Acknowledging Engineer, indicating that R is confronted with findings of design errors and must assess and acknowledge the causal attribution of those errors.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.757845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed capability to recognize that actual flooding evidence combined with IBM's independent analysis created an affirmative obligation under NSPE Code III.1.a and III.8 to acknowledge the stormwater runoff error
casecontext: Principal Engineer R was confronted with IBM's independent analysis showing post-development runoff exceeded pre-development conditions, confirmed by actual flooding of adjacent properties
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that post-construction flooding and IBM's modeling confirming runoff exceedance triggered mandatory error acknowledgment obligations
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue.
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue.
textreferences: Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Fault Allocation Multi-Party Responsibility
type: Multi-CausalFloodAttributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Causal Flood Attribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed capability to analyze and apportion professional responsibility among multiple parties — including BWJ, City Engineer J, Developer G, and affected property owners — following confirmation of the stormwater design deficiency
casecontext: Following error acknowledgment, a determination and allocation of fault among all parties involved was required
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Participation in fault determination and allocation process involving all parties following acknowledgment of the runoff problem
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
textreferences: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Independent Verification IBM Analysis
type: IndependentStormwaterModelingandAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed capability to independently review and verify Firm IBM's stormwater analysis against R's own original design calculations before formally acknowledging the error
casecontext: Principal Engineer R was obligated to independently verify IBM's analysis before acknowledging the runoff problem
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Required review of IBM's hydrological modeling methodology and conclusions against original BWJ stormwater design calculations
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Post-Approval Error Correction Stormwater Design
type: Post-ApprovalErrorCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's independent hydrological modeling confirmed that BWJ's subdivision stormwater design produced post-development runoff exceeding City C's regulatory standard; actual flooding of adjacent properties corroborated the modeling findings; Engineer R faced obligation to acknowledge and correct the error
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R
constraintclass: Post-Approval Error Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Principal Engineer R was constrained from continuing to defend or passively accept the original stormwater design calculations once IBM's independent modeling and actual flooding experience provided credible evidence that the design produced post-development runoff exceeding City C's pre-development peak flow standard — requiring R to independently verify IBM's analysis, acknowledge the error, and take affirmative corrective action.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue
temporalscope: From the date Principal Engineer R received IBM's independent analysis through completion of corrective design and implementation
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue
textreferences: professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.761729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification Before Acknowledgment IBM
type: Post-ApprovalErrorCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's independent modeling contradicted Engineer R's original stormwater calculations; R was required to independently verify IBM's findings before acknowledging error, ensuring that acknowledgment was grounded in R's own professional assessment rather than passive acceptance of third-party conclusions
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R
constraintclass: Post-Approval Error Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Before formally acknowledging the stormwater error, Principal Engineer R was constrained to independently review and verify IBM's analysis against R's own original calculations — prohibiting both premature acknowledgment without independent verification and continued defense of original calculations in the face of contradicting technical evidence from IBM's modeling and actual flooding experience.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8
temporalscope: From receipt of IBM's independent analysis through completion of R's independent verification
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.762459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning BER Cases
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed capability to identify and apply relevant BER precedents — including Cases 16-7, 95-5, and 93-8 — to analyze the professional obligations triggered by discovery of the stormwater design error
casecontext: BER Cases 16-7, 95-5, and 93-8 provided precedential guidance for Principal Engineer R's obligations following discovery of the stormwater design error
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Application of BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 precedent establishing affirmative obligation to acknowledge errors and advise clients when inaccurate data is discovered
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We turn to BER Case 16-7 for guidance
textreferences: BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors
textreferences: We turn to BER Case 16-7 for guidance
textreferences: the Board reviewed these facts, and used them, in conjunction with a similar fact set in BER Case 95-5 to conclude that once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Proactive Risk Disclosure Client
type: RiskCommunicationtoClientCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Risk Communication to Client Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed capability to promptly advise Developer G and City C about the inaccurate stormwater calculations and the consequent risk of regulatory non-compliance and property damage following discovery of the design error
casecontext: Principal Engineer R was obligated to promptly disclose the stormwater calculation error and its consequences to Developer G and City C
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to step forward and advise client about inaccurate data and new conclusions once error was discovered, consistent with BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions.
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Acceptance
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed capability to accept full professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including acknowledging that direction of the work creates professional responsibility for its adequacy
casecontext: Principal Engineer R directed the development of subdivision plans including stormwater management design that was subsequently found to be non-compliant
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that directing preparation of the subdivision stormwater design creates professional responsibility under NSPE Code III.8
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
textreferences: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders.
textreferences: Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Stormwater Directed Work
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer R directed preparation of the subdivision stormwater design; following identification of design errors causing flooding, R's professional accountability for the directed work was invoked as a constraint on deflecting responsibility
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: Principal Engineer R was constrained by professional obligation III.8 from deflecting or disclaiming accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction — establishing that professional responsibility for directed work product attaches to the directing engineer regardless of whether subordinates performed the calculations.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.8; BER Case 93-8
sourcetext: Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
temporalscope: From project completion through resolution of the stormwater compliance deficiency
textreferences: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders
textreferences: Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
textreferences: as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.761876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Professional Seal Competence Verification
type: ProfessionalSealAffixationCompetenceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R was required to verify, before sealing the subdivision stormwater design documents, that the design genuinely met City C's regulatory requirements for post-development peak flow control, and to refrain from sealing documents that did not meet those requirements.
casecontext: Principal Engineer R sealed subdivision stormwater design documents that were subsequently found to violate City C's post-development peak flow regulations, raising questions about the adequacy of pre-seal verification of regulatory compliance.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Inadequate exercise demonstrated by sealing of plans that were subsequently found to violate the 25-year recurrence interval peak flow requirement, indicating that the pre-seal competence verification was insufficient.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
textreferences: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.758535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Risk Management Team Convening
type: RiskManagementTeamConveningandCoordinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Risk Management Team Convening and Coordination Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed capability to recognize that the confirmed stormwater design error required convening the BWJ risk management team to collectively address fault allocation, corrective design, and remediation strategy
casecontext: Following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, Principal Engineer R was obligated to convene the BWJ risk management team to address the problem collectively
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to bring BWJ risk management team together following acknowledgment of the runoff flow problem
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
textreferences: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
textreferences: bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.763665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Stormwater Regulatory Compliance
type: StormwaterRegulatoryComplianceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R possessed — or was obligated to possess — the technical capability to verify that the subdivision stormwater design met City C's regulatory requirement that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak flows not exceed pre-development conditions, but the independent review found this requirement was not met.
casecontext: Principal Engineer R directed development of subdivision stormwater plans for Developer G that were subsequently found to produce post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C subdivision regulations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Firm IBM's independent finding that post-development runoff flows were substantially larger than pre-development for the 25-year, two-hour storm event, indicating the capability was either absent or inadequately exercised.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.756853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification
type: StormwaterRegulatoryComplianceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R needed technical capability to verify that the subdivision stormwater management design complied with City C's post-development peak flow requirements before sealing and submitting the design documents
casecontext: Principal Engineer R directed preparation of stormwater design that was subsequently found to exceed City C's regulatory peak flow requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to adequately verify that post-development runoff did not exceed pre-development conditions as required by City C regulations, resulting in non-compliant design
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:36.051423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions
textreferences: in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions
textreferences: the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Stormwater Risk Assessment
type: StormwaterRiskAssessmentCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Stormwater Risk Assessment Competence
capabilitystatement: Principal Engineer R was required to possess technical capability to assess stormwater runoff risks associated with the subdivision design, including quantifying post-development peak flows for the 25-year recurrence interval storm event and verifying compliance with City C's regulatory thresholds.
casecontext: Principal Engineer R directed stormwater management design for the subdivision that was found to produce substantially higher post-development runoff than pre-development conditions, indicating inadequate stormwater risk assessment during design.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Inadequate exercise demonstrated by the independent finding that post-development runoff substantially exceeded pre-development conditions, indicating insufficient stormwater risk assessment during design.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:42:10.503785+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Principal Engineer R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.757974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Property Owners Lodge Complaints
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Investigation_Constraint
activates constraint: Municipal_Duty_to_Respond_to_Public_Complaints
activates constraint: Transparency_and_Accountability_Constraint
causes state change: Dispute moves from private harm to public record; City C now has formal notice of both a technical failure allegation and an ethical process allegation; inaction is no longer a viable option for the municipality
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_C_Must_Address_Conflict_of_Interest_Allegation
creates obligation: City_C_Must_Investigate_Flooding_Cause
creates obligation: Engage_Independent_Technical_Reviewer
creates obligation: J_Must_Disclose_Prior_Relationship_Formally_If_Not_Already_Done
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After flooding events; triggers independent review engagement
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: Affected neighboring property owners formally complained to City C about both the flooding damage they sustained and a perceived conflict of interest arising from City Engineer J's prior association with Firm BWJ. This dual complaint, technical and ethical, forced the city into an investigative posture.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Property Owners Lodge Complaints → City Engages IBM for Review
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Affected neighboring property owners formally complained to City C about both the flooding damage and the conflict-of-interest allegations, following which City C made a deliberate decision to engage independent firm IBM to conduct a technical review
cause: Property Owners Lodge Complaints
counterfactual: Without formal complaints from property owners, City C would likely not have initiated an independent review, and the design non-compliance and conflict of interest may have remained unaddressed; the complaints were the direct trigger for IBM's engagement
effect: City Engages IBM for Review
necessary factors: City C's institutional response obligation upon receiving formal complaints
necessary factors: City C's recognition that J's conflict of interest compromised the integrity of the original review
necessary factors: Neighboring property owners experiencing and documenting flood damage
necessary factors: Property owners formally lodging complaints with City C regarding both flooding and the conflict of interest
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City C (decision to engage IBM); property owners as initiating actors
sufficient factors: Formal complaints alleging both technical failure and ethical breach + City C's accountability obligation = decision to commission independent review
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Public Safety Risk from Stormwater Design Deficiency
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of subdivision through resolution of stormwater design deficiency
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City C residents
affectedparties: Neighboring property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Neighboring properties and residents in vicinity of City C subdivision
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — design deficiency and flooding risk remain unresolved
textreferences: flooding damage caused water damage to their homes
textreferences: properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding
textreferences: storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
triggeringevent: Post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeding regulatory limits caused flooding and water damage to neighboring homes
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.751051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Qualitative Risk Assessment - Flooding Causation Analysis
type: QualitativeRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Firm IBM as part of independent review
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Assessment of Contributing Factors to Post-Subdivision Flooding
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:16.956825+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualitative Risk Assessment
sourcetext: Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential
textreferences: Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event
usedby: Firm IBM, City C, ethical analysis of proportionate responsibility
usedincontext: IBM's review included assessment of multiple contributing factors to flooding, including the subdivision design deficiencies, the insufficient culvert capacity, and the exacerbating construction of paved areas and a large outbuilding by a property owner — providing a structured multi-factor causation analysis
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.749141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for City Engineer J to review and approve plans prepared by Firm BWJ, given that City Engineer J formerly worked for Firm BWJ?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did City Engineer J have an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose his prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ to City C decision-makers before reviewing and approving the subdivision plans, even if the elapsed time since his departure was substantial?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: To what extent does the flooding harm to neighboring property owners create an independent ethical obligation for Principal Engineer R to proactively notify affected third parties — not merely the client or City C — of the potential design deficiency, even before a formal error determination is made?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Given that third-party property owner construction — including paved areas and a large outbuilding — contributed to the flooding, does Principal Engineer R bear any ethical responsibility to ensure that the multi-causal nature of the harm is accurately and completely communicated to City C and affected parties, rather than allowing the design deficiency to be treated as the sole cause?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the Board's conclusion that Engineer J's transition was 'not recent' rely on an unstated factual assumption about the elapsed time, and if so, what temporal threshold should govern when a former private-sector employment relationship no longer creates an appearance of conflict for a public-sector engineer reviewing that former employer's work?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: What are Principal Engineer R's ethical responsibilities under the facts?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Objectivity in City Engineer J's plan review conflict with the principle of Loyalty to Former Employer, in that J's prior professional and financial ties to Firm BWJ may have created — consciously or not — a disposition toward approving rather than rigorously scrutinizing the subdivision plans, even absent any demonstrable bias?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How should Principal Engineer R balance the Error Acknowledgment Obligation — which calls for prompt and honest admission of mistakes — against the principle of Professional Accountability, which may require R to first independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before accepting findings that could expose Firm BWJ to significant legal and professional liability?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Public Welfare Paramount conflict with the principle of Regulatory Compliance Verification in this case, in that strict adherence to the City C 25-year recurrence interval standard may have been technically satisfied on paper while the actual design failed to protect neighboring residents from foreseeable flooding harm — suggesting that regulatory compliance alone is an insufficient proxy for the public welfare obligation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Conflict of Interest Recusal — which would counsel City Engineer J to step aside from reviewing Firm BWJ's plans — conflict with the principle of Objectivity in plan review, in the sense that recusal itself could be seen as an implicit acknowledgment of bias, while proceeding with review while disclosing the prior relationship might better serve transparency and the public interest if no actual bias exists?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did City Engineer J fulfill his duty of impartiality by reviewing and approving plans submitted by his former employer Firm BWJ without disclosing his prior employment relationship to affected stakeholders, regardless of whether the elapsed time since his departure was substantial?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the downstream harm of flooding to neighboring properties — confirmed by Firm IBM's independent analysis — demonstrate that City Engineer J's approval of Firm BWJ's stormwater plans produced net negative outcomes that a more rigorous or recused review process might have prevented, thereby undermining the justification for his approval?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Principal Engineer R demonstrate professional integrity and intellectual honesty by waiting to confirm Firm IBM's findings before acknowledging any error, or does the virtue of candor require a more proactive and immediate response upon learning that post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeded the regulatory standard?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.620971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Principal Engineer R bear an unconditional professional duty to acknowledge the stormwater design error and notify affected parties — including Developer G, City C, and neighboring property owners — independent of whether third-party actions by property owners contributed to the flooding, given that the regulatory non-compliance in the design is a necessary condition of the harm?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If City Engineer J had formally disclosed his prior employment at Firm BWJ to City C and recused himself from reviewing the subdivision plans — delegating approval authority to an independent municipal reviewer — would the stormwater design deficiency have been identified before construction, and would the flooding harm to neighboring properties have been avoided?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If the temporal gap between City Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans had been very recent — say, less than one year — would the Board's conclusion that no conflict of interest existed have changed, and what threshold of elapsed time should ethically trigger mandatory recusal in revolving-door scenarios?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Principal Engineer R had proactively commissioned an independent post-construction stormwater verification study immediately after subdivision completion — before any flooding occurred — would the regulatory non-compliance have been discovered and remediated in time to prevent property damage, and would such proactive verification constitute a best-practice ethical obligation for engineers directing stormwater-sensitive subdivision designs?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the property owners who constructed extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding had not made those modifications — thereby eliminating the third-party contributing factors identified by Firm IBM — would Firm BWJ's stormwater design alone have been sufficient to cause the observed flooding, and how should Principal Engineer R's error acknowledgment obligation be calibrated when causation is genuinely shared between design deficiency and third-party actions?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.621547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

R Acknowledges Error and Remediates
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal Engineer, Firm BWJ
foreseen unintended effects: Acknowledgment increases BWJ's and R's professional liability exposure
foreseen unintended effects: Failure to acknowledge perpetuates public safety risk and constitutes ongoing ethical violation
foreseen unintended effects: May result in financial cost to BWJ for remediation
foreseen unintended effects: May trigger professional discipline proceedings
fulfills obligation text: BER Case 16-7 and 95-5. Obligation to disclose errors and inaccurate data to clients and the public
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code I.1. Protection of public safety and welfare through corrective action
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code III.1.a, Engineers shall promptly acknowledge errors and omissions and shall make no misrepresentations or omit material facts
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code III.8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for all professional activities
guided by principle text: Personal accountability for professional work product (NSPE Code III.8)
guided by principle text: Professional honesty and integrity (NSPE Code II.3, III.1.a)
guided by principle text: Public safety primacy (NSPE Code I.1)
guided by principle text: Transparency with clients and the public regarding errors (BER 16-7, 95-5)
has agent: Engineer R
has mental state: deliberate (obligatory, action not yet confirmed as taken)
intended outcome: Fulfill professional ethical obligations by acknowledging the error, cooperating with remediation, and protecting public safety through corrected stormwater design
requires capability text: Communication with BWJ risk management and legal counsel
requires capability text: Development of corrective stormwater design options
requires capability text: Identification of specific calculation errors in pre/post-development runoff modeling
requires capability text: Independent verification of IBM's hydrologic analysis against original calculations
requires capability text: Transparent reporting to Developer G and City C
temporal marker: Post-IBM analysis; present obligation and future required action
temporal sequence: 11
violates obligation text: If acknowledgment is withheld: NSPE Code III.1.a, III.8, and I.1 would all be violated
violates obligation text: Withholding findings under litigation pressure would violate NSPE Code II.3. Engineers shall not attempt to injure the professional reputation of other engineers
within competence: true
comment: Following IBM's confirmation of substantial stormwater design non-compliance, Principal Engineer R faces the professional obligation to acknowledge the design error, verify IBM's findings against his own calculations, notify BWJ's risk management team, and engage in remediation of the stormwater problem.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

R Designs Stormwater Plans
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal Engineer, Firm BWJ
foreseen unintended effects: Downstream flooding if calculations were erroneous
foreseen unintended effects: Liability exposure for BWJ and Engineer R if design failed post-construction
fulfills obligation text: Formal production of stormwater calculations and plans as required by City C
fulfills obligation text: Submission of sealed engineering documents
guided by principle text: Honest representation of compliance with regulatory standards
guided by principle text: Public safety and welfare primacy (NSPE Code I.1)
guided by principle text: Technical accuracy and professional competence (NSPE Code II.2)
has agent: Engineer R
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Produce a compliant stormwater design satisfying City C's peak flow requirements and enabling subdivision approval
raises obligation text: Duty to produce technically accurate work product protective of public safety (NSPE Code I.1)
raises obligation text: NSPE Code II.2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence (if hydrologic methodology was misapplied)
raises obligation text: NSPE Code III.1.a, Engineers shall promptly acknowledge and correct errors (anticipatory obligation; failure materialized post-construction)
raises obligation text: NSPE Code III.8. Engineers shall accept responsibility for their professional activities
requires capability text: Correct application of 25-year storm event methodology
requires capability text: Familiarity with City C stormwater ordinance requirements
requires capability text: Pre- and post-development runoff computation
requires capability text: Stormwater hydrology and hydraulic modeling
temporal marker: Pre-construction, design phase
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: false
comment: Principal Engineer R made specific technical design decisions to produce stormwater management calculations and plans intended to demonstrate compliance with City C's requirement that post-development 25-year peak flows not exceed pre-development levels.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

R Designs Stormwater Plans → Neighboring Properties Flood
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: IBM determined through technical analysis that post-development stormwater runoff exceeded pre-development levels due to design deficiencies in BWJ's stormwater management calculations
cause: R Designs Stormwater Plans
counterfactual: Had R produced compliant stormwater calculations meeting regulatory standards, post-development runoff would not have exceeded pre-development levels and neighboring flooding would likely not have occurred
effect: Neighboring Properties Flood
necessary factors: Increased impervious surface area from paved areas altering natural drainage patterns
necessary factors: R's specific technical design decisions producing non-compliant stormwater calculations
necessary factors: Subdivision construction materializing the flawed design into physical infrastructure
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Principal Engineer R (Firm BWJ)
sufficient factors: Non-compliant stormwater design + completed construction of impervious surfaces + absence of corrective review prior to construction
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance State — City C Subdivision Stormwater
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From project inception through completion and post-construction review
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City Engineer J
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: Firm BWJ's subdivision design obligations under City C subdivision regulations
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — compliance status is actively contested following IBM findings
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
triggeringevent: City C subdivision regulations establishing quantitative stormwater performance standard applicable to the subdivision design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.751353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.624983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:08:02.625120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Stormwater Management Regulation - City C Peak Flow Requirement
type: StormwaterManagementRegulation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: City C municipal regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: City C Stormwater Runoff Regulation requiring post-development peak flows not to exceed pre-development conditions
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:25.842361+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Stormwater Management Regulation
sourcetext: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
textreferences: the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
usedby: Board of Ethical Review and independent firm IBM in assessing design compliance; Principal Engineer R in evaluating corrective obligations
usedincontext: Establishes the regulatory standard against which the subdivision design is evaluated; IBM's independent analysis and actual flooding experience indicate the design failed to comply with this requirement
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.752498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Subdivision Construction Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: As_Built_Compliance_Verification
activates constraint: Post_Construction_Monitoring
causes state change: Project transitions from design/approval phase to operational phase; hydrological impacts of increased impervious surface now physically realized and irreversible without remediation
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Monitor_Stormwater_Performance
creates obligation: Verify_As_Built_Conditions_Match_Approved_Plans
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After plan approval; before flooding complaints
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: low
comment: The subdivision designed by Firm BWJ was fully constructed, including extensive paved areas that materially increased impervious surface coverage across the development site. This physical transformation of the land locked in the hydrological conditions that would drive downstream flooding.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.764889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint — Engineer R Post-IBM Analysis
type: TemporalDisclosureUrgencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Neighboring properties were experiencing ongoing flooding harm, making prompt acknowledgment and corrective action time-sensitive to prevent continued damage.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R / Firm BWJ
constraintclass: Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon receipt of IBM's independent analysis confirming that the subdivision stormwater design produced runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, Principal Engineer R was constrained to promptly acknowledge the errors and disclose corrective obligations to City C and affected parties, prohibiting deferral of error acknowledgment to later proceedings or more convenient moments while neighboring properties continued to experience flooding harm.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint precedent; BER Case 16-7
sourcetext: After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
temporalscope: Immediately upon receipt of IBM's independent analysis confirming regulatory non-compliance
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
textreferences: Property owners complain that the flooding damage caused water damage to their homes
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.756717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Written Report Completeness Constraint — IBM Independent Review Report
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's independent review identified multiple technical findings relevant to the flooding causation analysis, all of which were required to be included in the written report to City C.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm IBM
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm IBM was constrained to include all relevant and pertinent factual information in its written independent review report submitted to City C, including the identified stormwater regulatory non-compliance, the contributing third-party factors, and the causal complexity of the flooding attribution, prohibiting selective omission of any identified contributing factor.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Written Report Completeness Constraint precedent
sourcetext: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of IBM's independent review report
textreferences: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
textreferences: Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential.
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.756196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from balancingwith
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050176+00:00
value: Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation

Defeasibility edge from balancingwith
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050254+00:00
value: Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050698+00:00
value: The BER applies a temporal threshold analysis: if J's transition from BWJ to City C occurred more than one year before the subdivision work was under contract, the conflict of interest concern is diminished; if the transition was recent, recusal or consent obligations would arise. The BER assumes the former.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050535+00:00
value: BER resolved the tension by applying a one-year temporal heuristic drawn from BER Case 14-8, concluding that a sufficiently distant prior employment relationship does not ethically compromise the reviewing engineer, provided no active project overlap existed

Defeasibility edge from balancingwith
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051376+00:00
value: Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050751+00:00
value: Loyalty to a former employer does not permanently bar a public engineer from reviewing that employer's submissions, but it does require consent when the transition is recent and the matter was active during the employment relationship

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050586+00:00
value: BER resolved the tension by finding that temporal distance (more than one year) sufficiently attenuates the loyalty obligation to permit review without consent, absent active project overlap

Defeasibility edge from balancingwith
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051476+00:00
value: Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050638+00:00
value: BER resolved the objectivity concern by applying a temporal threshold: sufficient temporal distance from prior employment is deemed to restore the capacity for objective review

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051263+00:00
value: BER resolved the tension by finding that temporal distance (more than one year) sufficiently attenuates the loyalty obligation to permit review without consent, absent active project overlap

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051659+00:00
value: Regulatory compliance obligations are non-negotiable and cannot be subordinated to client economic interests; actual flooding outcomes confirm that the design failed to meet the applicable standard

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050957+00:00
value: Following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were constrained to convene the BWJ risk management team and engage in a structured determination and allocation of fault among all contributing parties — including the design deficiency, the insufficient culvert, and third-party property owner actions — before implementing corrective measures, prohibiting unilateral assumption or deflection of fault.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051023+00:00
value: Firm IBM, in conducting and reporting its independent engineering review, was constrained to disclose all identified contributing factors to the flooding harm — including the insufficient culvert capacity of a property owner's driveway and the construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by another property owner — prohibiting a single-cause attribution report that omitted these third-party contributions to flooding potential.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051321+00:00
value: Public welfare obligations require corrective design and construction regardless of cost or inconvenience to Developer G or Firm BWJ

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050313+00:00
value: Professional accountability and public welfare obligations override any interest in avoiding acknowledgment of error; BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 establish that discovery of inaccurate data or erroneous conclusions triggers an affirmative disclosure duty

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051077+00:00
value: Professional accountability and public welfare obligations override any interest in avoiding acknowledgment of error; BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 establish that discovery of inaccurate data or erroneous conclusions triggers an affirmative disclosure duty

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051551+00:00
value: Professional accountability and public welfare obligations override any interest in avoiding acknowledgment of error; BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 establish that discovery of inaccurate data or erroneous conclusions triggers an affirmative disclosure duty

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051604+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure is required because the flooding risk has already materialized and affected third parties; delay in disclosure while awaiting legal resolution would compound harm to affected property owners

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050806+00:00
value: The affirmative obligation to acknowledge errors is triggered by the combination of actual flooding outcomes and IBM's independent modeling, both of which indicate non-compliance with City C's peak flow requirements; R cannot ethically await formal legal proceedings before acknowledging the deficiency

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050371+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure is required because the flooding risk has already materialized and affected third parties; delay in disclosure while awaiting legal resolution would compound harm to affected property owners

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051130+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure is required because the flooding risk has already materialized and affected third parties; delay in disclosure while awaiting legal resolution would compound harm to affected property owners

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.051182+00:00
value: BER Case 93-8 establishes that accepting responsibility for professional services is a basic tenet of ethical conduct that cannot be subordinated to self-interest or client economic concerns

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050479+00:00
value: Regulatory compliance obligations are non-negotiable and cannot be subordinated to client economic interests; actual flooding outcomes confirm that the design failed to meet the applicable standard

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050856+00:00
value: The combination of actual flooding and IBM's independent modeling indicating post-development runoff exceedance suggests the original design verification was inadequate; the regulatory compliance obligation required more rigorous hydrological analysis before certification

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:00:43.050909+00:00
value: Following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were constrained to convene the BWJ risk management team and engage in a structured determination and allocation of fault among all contributing parties — including the design deficiency, the insufficient culvert, and third-party property owner actions — before implementing corrective measures, prohibiting unilateral assumption or deflection of fault.

discovery of inaccurate data (Case 16-7) before legal settlement (Case 16-7)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Before a legal settlement is reached and while negotiations are underway, Engineer A discovers that data their report was based on is inaccurate
from entity text: discovery of inaccurate data (Case 16-7)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: legal settlement (Case 16-7)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: legal settlement Case 16-7
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

discovery of inaccurate data (Case 16-7) during legal settlement negotiations (Case 16-7)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Before a legal settlement is reached and while negotiations are underway, Engineer A discovers that data their report was based on is inaccurate
from entity text: discovery of inaccurate data (Case 16-7)
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: legal settlement negotiations (Case 16-7)
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: legal settlement negotiations Case 16-7
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

neighboring property flooding before property owners' complaints
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Property owners complain that the flooding damage caused water damage to their homes, and because of these complaints, City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
from entity text: neighboring property flooding
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: property owners' complaints
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: property owners complaints
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

pre-development conditions (no flooding) before post-development flooding
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction.
from entity text: pre-development conditions (no flooding)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: post-development flooding
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: post-development flooding
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

property owners' complaints before City C engaging Firm IBM for independent review
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: because of these complaints, City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
from entity text: property owners' complaints
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: City C engaging Firm IBM for independent review
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: City C engaging Firm IBM for independent review
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BWJ subdivision stormwater design implicated environmental stewardship obligations by affecting the drainage patterns and runoff volumes in the surrounding watershed, with the alleged design failure resulting in increased post-developme

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BWJ subdivision stormwater design implicated environmental stewardship obligations by affecting the drainage patterns and runoff volumes in the surrounding watershed, with the alleged design failure resulting in increased post-developme

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the flooding consequences experienced by adjacent property owners, and must take responsibility rath

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the flooding consequences experienced by adjacent property owners, and must take responsibility rath

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The stormwater design's alleged failure to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions resulted in flooding and property damage to adjacent homeowners, implicating the paramount obligation to protect public wel

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The stormwater design's alleged failure to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions resulted in flooding and property damage to adjacent homeowners, implicating the paramount obligation to protect public wel

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J, who previously worked for Firm BWJ, reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C, raising public concern about whether J's prior employment relationship compromised the impartiality of that review

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J, who previously worked for Firm BWJ, reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C, raising public concern about whether J's prior employment relationship compromised the impartiality of that review

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans must be conducted with objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, to ensure that the municipal plan review proces

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans must be conducted with objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, to ensure that the municipal plan review proces

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon being confronted with IBM's independent analysis showing stormwater runoff exceedance and the actual flooding experienced by adjacent property owners, Principal Engineer R has an obligation to proactively disclose the identified design

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon being confronted with IBM's independent analysis showing stormwater runoff exceedance and the actual flooding experienced by adjacent property owners, Principal Engineer R has an obligation to proactively disclose the identified design

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development c

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development c

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design allegedly produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements, is obligated to review IBM's independent analysis, verify its findings agains

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design allegedly produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements, is obligated to review IBM's independent analysis, verify its findings agains

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: BER Case 14-8 established that an engineer who transitions from a private firm to a public agency retains ongoing loyalty duties to the former employer and client, requiring consent before participating in proceedings adverse to those parti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: BER Case 14-8 established that an engineer who transitions from a private firm to a public agency retains ongoing loyalty duties to the former employer and client, requiring consent before participating in proceedings adverse to those parti

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BWJ subdivision stormwater design implicated environmental stewardship obligations by affecting the drainage patterns and runoff volumes in the surrounding watershed, with the alleged design failure resulting in increased post-developme

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the flooding consequences experienced by adjacent property owners, and must take responsibility rath

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The stormwater design's alleged failure to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions resulted in flooding and property damage to adjacent homeowners, implicating the paramount obligation to protect public wel

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The stormwater design's alleged failure to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions resulted in flooding and property damage to adjacent homeowners, implicating the paramount obligation to protect public wel

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J, who previously worked for Firm BWJ, reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C, raising public concern about whether J's prior employment relationship compromised the impartiality of that review

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans must be conducted with objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, to ensure that the municipal plan review proces

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon being confronted with IBM's independent analysis showing stormwater runoff exceedance and the actual flooding experienced by adjacent property owners, Principal Engineer R has an obligation to proactively disclose the identified design

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design allegedly produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements, is obligated to review IBM's independent analysis, verify its findings agains

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design allegedly produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements, is obligated to review IBM's independent analysis, verify its findings agains

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: BER Case 14-8 established that an engineer who transitions from a private firm to a public agency retains ongoing loyalty duties to the former employer and client, requiring consent before participating in proceedings adverse to those parti

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the flooding consequences experienced by adjacent property owners, and must take responsibility rath

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm IBM was obligated to conduct its independent stormwater analysis objectively and completely, reporting all findings accurately — including findings adverse to Firm BWJ's design — and including all relevant technical information in its

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm IBM was obligated to conduct its independent stormwater analysis objectively and completely, reporting all findings accurately — including findings adverse to Firm BWJ's design — and including all relevant technical information in its

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm IBM was obligated to conduct its independent stormwater analysis objectively and completely, reporting all findings accurately — including findings adverse to Firm BWJ's design — and including all relevant technical information in its

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to acknowledge the stormwater runoff problem identified by Firm IBM's independent analysis and confirmed by actual post-construction flooding, recognizing that both empirical evidence and independent model

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to promptly advise the client (Developer G and/or City C) about the inaccurate stormwater calculations and the corrected conclusions once R confirmed the error, consistent with the affirmative obligation e

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to promptly advise the client (Developer G and/or City C) about the inaccurate stormwater calculations and the corrected conclusions once R confirmed the error, consistent with the affirmative obligation e

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J was obligated to conduct the review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans with full objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, and to ensure that the review w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J was obligated to conduct the review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans with full objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, and to ensure that the review w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to design and implement a workable corrective stormwater management system that brings the subdivision into compliance with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not ex

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to design and implement a workable corrective stormwater management system that brings the subdivision into compliance with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not ex

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to design and implement a workable corrective stormwater management system that brings the subdivision into compliance with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not ex

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-de

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-de

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated, following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, to convene the BWJ risk management team to collectively assess the error, determine fault allocation among all parties involved, and develop a work

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-de

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J was obligated to honor ongoing loyalty duties to former employer Firm BWJ and its clients, including refraining from participating in proceedings adverse to BWJ's interests without first obtaining consent from BWJ and its cl

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J was obligated to honor ongoing loyalty duties to former employer Firm BWJ and its clients, including refraining from participating in proceedings adverse to BWJ's interests without first obtaining consent from BWJ and its cl

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J was obligated to recuse themselves from reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C if J's transition from BWJ to City C occurred within approximately one year before the subdivision work was un

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: City Engineer J was obligated to recuse themselves from reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C if J's transition from BWJ to City C occurred within approximately one year before the subdivision work was un

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to independently review and verify Firm IBM's analysis against R's own original stormwater design calculations before formally acknowledging the error, ensuring that any acknowledgment was grounded in R's

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to independently review and verify Firm IBM's analysis against R's own original stormwater design calculations before formally acknowledging the error, ensuring that any acknowledgment was grounded in R's

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated, following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, to convene the BWJ risk management team to collectively assess the error, determine fault allocation among all parties involved, and develop a work

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to accept full professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the design's failure to comply with City C's regulatory requirements, recogni

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to accept full professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the design's failure to comply with City C's regulatory requirements, recogni

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to ensure that the subdivision stormwater management design adequately protected the surrounding drainage environment by ensuring post-development runoff did not exceed pre-development condit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to ensure that the subdivision stormwater management design adequately protected the surrounding drainage environment by ensuring post-development runoff did not exceed pre-development condit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to ensure that the subdivision stormwater management design adequately protected the surrounding drainage environment by ensuring post-development runoff did not exceed pre-development condit

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Principal Engineer R was obligated to acknowledge the stormwater runoff problem identified by Firm IBM's independent analysis and confirmed by actual post-construction flooding, recognizing that both empirical evidence and independent model

subdivision construction before neighboring property flooding
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded... After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
from entity text: subdivision construction
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: neighboring property flooding
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: neighboring property flooding
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.765694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM Independent Reviewer
type: Third-PartyEngineeringReviewer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Firm IBM Objective Complete Reporting Stormwater Independent Review
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Independent engineering firm', 'specialty': 'Stormwater hydrologic modeling', 'engagement_basis': 'Third-party review following flooding complaints'}
caseinvolvement: Firm IBM conducted independent stormwater modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision design following complaints about post-construction flooding, finding that post-development runoff flows exceed pre-development conditions in conflict with City C requirements. IBM's analysis is used to establish the evidentiary basis for Engineer R's obligation to acknowledge design errors.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'City C or affected parties'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviews_work_of', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Third-Party Engineering Reviewer
sourcetext: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work
textreferences: IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.753270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM Third-Party Engineering Reviewer
type: Third-PartyEngineeringReviewer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Firm IBM Objective Complete Reporting Stormwater Independent Review
attributes: {'firm_type': 'Third-party engineering firm', 'engaged_by': 'City C', 'analysis_type': 'Independent hydrological modeling and stormwater analysis'}
caseinvolvement: Independent engineering firm engaged by City C to conduct objective technical review of the subdivision design following flooding complaints, performing independent hydrological modeling and analysis that found post-development runoff flows substantially larger than pre-development conditions for the 25-year storm event.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'City C'}
relationships: {'type': 'independent_of', 'target': 'Developer G'}
relationships: {'type': 'independent_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewer_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ subdivision design'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Third-Party Engineering Reviewer
sourcetext: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
textreferences: City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.749874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

IBM Causation Complexity Disclosure Constraint — Third-Party Contributing Factors
type: CausationComplexityDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's review identified multiple contributing factors to flooding, including both the subdivision design deficiency and third-party property owner actions, requiring complete multi-causal disclosure in the review report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Firm IBM
constraintclass: Causation Complexity Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm IBM, in conducting and reporting its independent engineering review, was constrained to disclose all identified contributing factors to the flooding harm — including the insufficient culvert capacity of a property owner's driveway and the construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by another property owner — prohibiting a single-cause attribution report that omitted these third-party contributions to flooding potential.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:41:48.553302+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Written Report Completeness Constraint; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
sourcetext: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of IBM's independent review report to City C
textreferences: After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
textreferences: Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential.
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.755460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Obligation
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer R became aware of IBM's analysis and the flooding complaints through completion of acknowledgment and initiation of corrective action
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: BWJ risk management team
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem
stateclass: Error Acknowledgment Obligation State
subject: Principal Engineer R's professional obligation upon receiving IBM's credible independent analysis contradicting the compliance of the subdivision stormwater design
terminatedby: Engineer R verifying IBM's analysis, acknowledging the runoff problem, engaging BWJ's risk management team, and initiating corrective design process
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work
textreferences: Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem
triggeringevent: Receipt of IBM's independent modeling results showing regulatory exceedance, combined with documented real-world flooding of adjacent properties
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.754112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening BWJ Stormwater
type: Multi-PartyFaultAllocationProceduralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: IBM's analysis identified multiple contributing factors to flooding including the subdivision design deficiency, an insufficient culvert, and potential third-party property owner actions; structured fault allocation was required before remediation responsibilities could be assigned
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ
constraintclass: Multi-Party Fault Allocation Procedural Constraint
constraintstatement: Following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were constrained to convene the BWJ risk management team and engage in a structured determination and allocation of fault among all contributing parties — including the design deficiency, the insufficient culvert, and third-party property owner actions — before implementing corrective measures, prohibiting unilateral assumption or deflection of fault.
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:47:15.234907+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5; BER Case 93-8
sourcetext: bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
temporalscope: Following acknowledgment of the stormwater error through completion of fault allocation and corrective design implementation
textreferences: IBM's review included assessment of multiple contributing factors to flooding, including the subdivision design deficiencies, the insufficient culvert
textreferences: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved
textreferences: bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.762018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Subdivision Stormwater Regulatory Non-Compliance
type: RegulatoryStandardExceedanceConfirmedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of subdivision construction through independent IBM review findings and ongoing
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City Engineer J
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Neighboring property owners
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
stateclass: Regulatory Standard Exceedance Confirmed State
subject: Firm BWJ's subdivision stormwater design for City C subdivision
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — regulatory non-compliance remains unresolved in the facts presented
textreferences: City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
textreferences: Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
triggeringevent: Firm IBM's independent modeling confirmed post-development 25-year storm runoff flows substantially exceed pre-development conditions, in violation of City C subdivision regulations
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.750354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Third-Party Property Owner Actions Complicating Flood Causation
type: ContributingThird-PartyActionComplicatingCausationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From IBM's independent review findings identifying third-party contributions through resolution of causal apportionment
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Firm IBM
affectedparties: Neighboring property owners
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
stateclass: Contributing Third-Party Action Complicating Causation State
subject: Causal analysis of flooding harm attributed to subdivision design
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — causal apportionment remains unresolved in the facts presented
textreferences: Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential.
textreferences: One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
triggeringevent: IBM's independent review identified that a property owner's undersized driveway culvert and construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding also contributed to flooding potential
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.750873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conflict of Interest State — City Engineer J
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time City Engineer J assumed the City Engineer role and reviewed Firm BWJ's plans through the present
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City Engineer J
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Neighboring property owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:46.035088+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: City Engineer J's professional role as approving authority over former employer Firm BWJ
terminatedby: Not yet terminated
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
textreferences: approved by City Engineer J
triggeringevent: City Engineer J, a former principal of Firm BWJ, exercised official approval authority over subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.751208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Subdivision Causation Complexity
type: ContributingThird-PartyActionComplicatingCausationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point harm materialized through the fault determination and allocation process
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
affectedparties: Other potentially contributing parties
affectedparties: Principal Engineer R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
stateclass: Contributing Third-Party Action Complicating Causation State
subject: Causal complexity in attributing flooding harm between Engineer R's design deficiency and potential third-party contributions
terminatedby: Completion of fault determination and allocation process among all involved parties
textreferences: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
textreferences: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
triggeringevent: Recognition that multiple parties may bear responsibility for the flooding outcomes, requiring allocation of fault before corrective obligations can be fully assigned
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.754301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm IBM Objective Complete Reporting Stormwater Independent Review
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm IBM was engaged by City C as an independent third-party reviewer to evaluate the BWJ subdivision stormwater design following flooding complaints. IBM's independent modeling showed post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's requirements.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Objectivity Invoked By City Engineer J Plan Review
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm IBM
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm IBM was obligated to conduct its independent stormwater analysis objectively and completely, reporting all findings accurately — including findings adverse to Firm BWJ's design — and including all relevant technical information in its report to City C, so that City C could make informed decisions about the subdivision design's regulatory compliance.
sourcetext: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
temporalscope: During and upon completion of the independent stormwater analysis
textreferences: Firm IBM conducted independent stormwater modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision design following complaints about post-construction flooding
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening BWJ
type: Post-ErrorRiskManagementTeamConveningObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Following confirmation of the stormwater design error, the BER directed that R should bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem, conduct fault allocation, and ultimately develop and construct a corrective design serving the citizens of City C.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Invoked By Principal Engineer R
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal Engineer R
obligationclass: Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening Obligation
obligationstatement: Principal Engineer R was obligated, following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, to convene the BWJ risk management team to collectively assess the error, determine fault allocation among all parties involved, and develop a workable corrective design that brings the subdivision into compliance with City C's regulatory requirements and eliminates the flooding harm to adjacent property owners.
sourcetext: Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
temporalscope: Following acknowledgment of the runoff problem and verification of IBM's analysis
textreferences: Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
textreferences: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
textreferences: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J
type: RevolvingDoorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Conflict of Interest Recusal Invoked By City Engineer J
adheres to principle: Loyalty to Former Employer and Client Invoked By City Engineer J via BER 14-8
adheres to principle: Objectivity Invoked By City Engineer J Plan Review
has obligation: City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recusal Former Employer BWJ Review
has obligation: City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Transition
has obligation: City Engineer J Objectivity Plan Review BWJ Subdivision
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'current_employer': 'City C', 'former_employer': 'Firm BWJ', 'transition_timing': 'Assumed at least one year before subdivision contract'}
caseinvolvement: City Engineer J previously worked for private Firm BWJ and now holds the municipal City Engineer position responsible for reviewing and approving design documents submitted by BWJ, raising public conflict-of-interest concerns. The BER concludes no ethical issue if the transition occurred at least one year before the subdivision work was under contract.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'current_employer', 'target': 'City C'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
relationships: {'type': 'review_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm BWJ Subdivision Submittal'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Revolving Door Engineer
sourcetext: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
textreferences: when Engineer J left Firm BWJ and joined the City C
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.752839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Municipal Plan Review Engineer
type: MunicipalPlanReviewEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Conflict of Interest Recusal Invoked By City Engineer J
adheres to principle: Loyalty to Former Employer and Client Invoked By City Engineer J via BER 14-8
adheres to principle: Objectivity Invoked By City Engineer J Plan Review
has obligation: City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recusal Former Employer BWJ Review
has obligation: City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Transition
has obligation: City Engineer J Objectivity Plan Review BWJ Subdivision
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied as City Engineer)', 'employer': 'City C', 'title': 'City Engineer', 'prior_employment': 'Former principal at Firm BWJ'}
caseinvolvement: City Engineer of City C who administratively reviewed and approved the subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ for conformance with city policy, despite having been formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, raising conflict-of-interest concerns from affected property owners.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_servant_to', 'target': 'City C residents and property owners'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Municipal Plan Review Engineer
sourcetext: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J and are released for bidding and construction
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ
textreferences: Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ
textreferences: The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J and are released for bidding and construction
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.749731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Engineer J Temporal Gap Mitigation
type: TemporalGapMitigatingConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From BER's assumption that at least one year elapsed between Engineer J's departure from BWJ and the subdivision contract, through the conclusion of the conflict assessment
affectedparties: Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: City C
affectedparties: City Engineer J
affectedparties: Firm BWJ
concept category: State
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:41.701431+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: If so, the Board finds no issue with Engineer J having worked for Firm BWJ back in the day.
stateclass: Temporal Gap Mitigating Conflict State
subject: Engineer J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ assessed against elapsed time since departure
terminatedby: BER finding that no ethical issue exists given the assumed sufficient temporal gap
textreferences: However, if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise.
textreferences: If so, the Board finds no issue with Engineer J having worked for Firm BWJ back in the day.
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract.
triggeringevent: BER's application of the one-year temporal threshold to assess whether Engineer J's prior employment creates an active ethical compromise
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.753612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Environmental Stewardship Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Stormwater Design
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipinEngineeringPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Subdivision stormwater management design; watershed and drainage impacts on adjacent properties
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Developer G project scope and cost
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BWJ subdivision stormwater design implicated environmental stewardship obligations by affecting the drainage patterns and runoff volumes in the surrounding watershed, with the alleged design failure resulting in increased post-development runoff that caused flooding of adjacent properties and disrupted pre-existing hydrological conditions
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Environmental stewardship in stormwater engineering requires designing systems that maintain pre-development hydrological conditions, protecting both the natural environment and adjacent property owners from adverse runoff impacts
invokedby: Firm BWJ
invokedby: Principal Engineer R
principleclass: Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
sourcetext: Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions).
tensionresolution: Environmental stewardship obligations require that designs actually achieve hydrological neutrality, not merely claim compliance; actual flooding outcomes indicate the stewardship obligation was not met
textreferences: Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.759585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm BWJ
type: Provider-ClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Stormwater Design
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Design
adheres to principle: Regulatory Compliance Verification Invoked By BWJ Stormwater Design
has obligation: Firm BWJ Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation City C Subdivision
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Verification Stormwater Design
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Watershed Protection Design BWJ Subdivision Stormwater
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private engineering firm', 'former_employee': 'City Engineer J', 'principal_engineer': 'Engineer R'}
caseinvolvement: Firm BWJ is the private engineering firm that employed City Engineer J before J's transition to City C, and that prepared the subdivision stormwater design under Principal Engineer R. BWJ is the entity whose submittals are reviewed by its former employee J, and whose design is alleged to be deficient. BWJ's risk management team is identified as a party that should be engaged by Engineer R.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
relationships: {'type': 'submits_to', 'target': 'City C Municipal Engineering Department'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Provider-Client Role
sourcetext: City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ
textreferences: City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ
textreferences: Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8
textreferences: bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.753132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm BWJ Subdivision Design Firm
type: StormwaterDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Stormwater Design
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Design
adheres to principle: Regulatory Compliance Verification Invoked By BWJ Stormwater Design
has obligation: Firm BWJ Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation City C Subdivision
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Verification Stormwater Design
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Watershed Protection Design BWJ Subdivision Stormwater
attributes: {'firm_type': 'Engineering and surveying firm', 'location': 'City C / State Q context', 'former_principal': 'City Engineer J'}
caseinvolvement: Engineering and surveying firm retained by Developer G to develop subdivision plans, operating under the direction of Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design was found to be non-compliant with City C's post-development peak flow requirements.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer G'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reviewer', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Stormwater Design Engineer
sourcetext: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision
textreferences: City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ
textreferences: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.749455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Directed Stormwater Design
type: ProfessionalAccountabilityAcceptanceforDirectedWorkObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
casecontext: Principal Engineer R directed the development of subdivision plans for Developer G, including the stormwater management design. The BER invoked NSPE III.8 to affirm that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, and cited the basic tenet that engineers must accept responsibility for professional services they render.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Invoked By Principal Engineer R
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal Engineer R
obligationclass: Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work Obligation
obligationstatement: Principal Engineer R was obligated to accept full professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the design's failure to comply with City C's regulatory requirements, recognizing that R's role as directing principal engineer does not permit deflection of responsibility to subordinate preparers.
sourcetext: professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
temporalscope: Upon and following discovery of the design error; throughout the remediation process
textreferences: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders.
textreferences: Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction
textreferences: professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Recusal Invoked By City Engineer J
type: ConflictofInterestRecusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Administrative review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans for Developer G
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: City Engineer J, who previously worked for Firm BWJ, reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C, raising public concern about whether J's prior employment relationship compromised the impartiality of that review
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The BER applies a temporal threshold analysis: if J's transition from BWJ to City C occurred more than one year before the subdivision work was under contract, the conflict of interest concern is diminished; if the transition was recent, recusal or consent obligations would arise. The BER assumes the former.
invokedby: City Engineer J
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation
sourcetext: The first ethical issue has to do with whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ.
tensionresolution: BER resolved the tension by applying a one-year temporal heuristic drawn from BER Case 14-8, concluding that a sufficiently distant prior employment relationship does not ethically compromise the reviewing engineer, provided no active project overlap existed
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.754454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Subdivision Design Engineer
type: StormwaterDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Principal Engineer R
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Principal Engineer R Post-Error Discovery
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Invoked By Principal Engineer R
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Stormwater Runoff Exceedance
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening BWJ
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Proactive Risk Disclosure Client Post-Error Discovery
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Directed Stormwater Design
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied as Principal Engineer)', 'employer': 'Firm BWJ', 'specialty': 'Subdivision engineering and surveying', 'role_in_firm': 'Principal Engineer'}
caseinvolvement: Principal Engineer at Firm BWJ who directed the development of subdivision plans for Developer G, including stormwater management design that was subsequently found to produce substantially larger post-development runoff flows than permitted under City C's 25-year peak flow regulations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:35:39.555288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer G'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_colleague', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_reviewer', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Stormwater Design Engineer
sourcetext: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision
textreferences: Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision
textreferences: Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.749318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Stormwater Runoff Exceedance
type: ErrorAcknowledgment
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
prevails over: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
casecontext: Firm IBM's independent analysis showed post-development stormwater runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's regulatory requirements, and adjacent property owners experienced actual flooding following subdivision construction. Principal Engineer R directed the preparation of the original stormwater design.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Principal Engineer R
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal Engineer R
obligationclass: Error Acknowledgment
obligationstatement: Principal Engineer R was obligated to acknowledge the stormwater runoff problem identified by Firm IBM's independent analysis and confirmed by actual post-construction flooding, recognizing that both empirical evidence and independent modeling demonstrated that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development conditions.
sourcetext: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue.
temporalscope: Upon being confronted with IBM's independent analysis and the actual flooding evidence
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue.
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
textreferences: professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Proactive Risk Disclosure Client Post-Error Discovery
type: TimelyRiskDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
prevails over: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
casecontext: BER Case 16-7 established that upon discovering inaccurate data underlying a prior report, an engineer has an affirmative obligation to advise the client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions. Principal Engineer R faced an analogous situation when IBM's analysis and actual flooding confirmed errors in the stormwater design.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Principal Engineer R Post-Error Discovery
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal Engineer R
obligationclass: Timely Risk Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Principal Engineer R was obligated to promptly advise the client (Developer G and/or City C) about the inaccurate stormwater calculations and the corrected conclusions once R confirmed the error, consistent with the affirmative obligation established in BER Case 16-7 to step forward and advise clients when data upon which a report was based is found to be inaccurate.
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions.
temporalscope: Upon confirmation that the stormwater design contained errors producing runoff exceedance
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue.
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Watershed Protection Design BWJ Subdivision Stormwater
type: WatershedProtectionDesignObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Subdivision Causation Complexity
casecontext: The BWJ subdivision stormwater design allegedly failed to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions, resulting in flooding and property damage to adjacent property owners. City C's regulatory requirements explicitly required post-development runoff not to exceed pre-development conditions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Environmental Stewardship Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Stormwater Design
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Design
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ
obligationclass: Watershed Protection Design Obligation
obligationstatement: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to ensure that the subdivision stormwater management design adequately protected the surrounding drainage environment by ensuring post-development runoff did not exceed pre-development conditions, consistent with City C's regulatory requirements and the broader duty to protect public welfare from stormwater-related flooding.
sourcetext: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
temporalscope: During design development and prior to plan submission to City C for approval
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.761123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Principal Engineer R Post-Error Discovery
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: IBM's independent stormwater analysis findings; flooding of adjacent property owners; City C regulatory non-compliance
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Upon being confronted with IBM's independent analysis showing stormwater runoff exceedance and the actual flooding experienced by adjacent property owners, Principal Engineer R has an obligation to proactively disclose the identified design deficiency to relevant parties — including the client, the City, and potentially affected property owners — without waiting for formal legal proceedings to compel disclosure
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proactive disclosure is required because the flooding risk has already materialized and affected third parties; delay in disclosure while awaiting legal resolution would compound harm to affected property owners
invokedby: Principal Engineer R
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions.
tensionresolution: BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 establish that discovery of error triggers an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise the client; the obligation extends to relevant parties when public welfare is implicated
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.759281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked By Principal Engineer R
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BWJ subdivision stormwater design errors; post-construction flooding of adjacent properties
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the flooding consequences experienced by adjacent property owners, and must take responsibility rather than deflecting or rationalizing the design deficiency
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires R to accept responsibility for the professional services rendered, engage in corrective action, and participate in the allocation of fault among all parties involved
invokedby: Principal Engineer R
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders.
tensionresolution: BER Case 93-8 establishes that accepting responsibility for professional services is a basic tenet of ethical conduct that cannot be subordinated to self-interest or client economic concerns
textreferences: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders
textreferences: Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
textreferences: There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.758831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Design
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Subdivision stormwater management design; flooding of adjacent property owners; City C regulatory compliance
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Developer G economic interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The stormwater design's alleged failure to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions resulted in flooding and property damage to adjacent homeowners, implicating the paramount obligation to protect public welfare in engineering design decisions
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires that the engineering design actually protect third-party property owners from flooding, not merely satisfy formal submission requirements; real-world flooding outcomes are evidence that the public welfare obligation was not met
invokedby: Firm BWJ
invokedby: Principal Engineer R
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligations require corrective design and construction regardless of cost or inconvenience to Developer G or Firm BWJ
textreferences: Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
textreferences: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.758978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Objectivity Plan Review BWJ Subdivision
type: ProcurementInvestigationObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recusal Former Employer BWJ Review
defeasible under: Engineer J Temporal Gap Mitigation
prevails over: City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Transition
casecontext: City Engineer J reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ. The BER examined whether J's former employment relationship compromised the objectivity of the plan review function, ultimately finding no ethical issue only on the assumption that J's transition occurred at least one year before the subdivision work.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Objectivity Invoked By City Engineer J Plan Review
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City Engineer J
obligationclass: Procurement Investigation Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: City Engineer J was obligated to conduct the review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans with full objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, and to ensure that the review was technically substantive rather than perfunctory given the potential appearance of favoritism.
sourcetext: City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
temporalscope: During the administrative review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
textreferences: City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
textreferences: City Engineer J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans must be conducted with objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship
textreferences: The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised.
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Loyalty to Former Employer and Client Invoked By City Engineer J via BER 14-8
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Engineer J's review of BWJ subdivision plans; analogy to Engineer A in BER Case 14-8
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: BER Case 14-8 established that an engineer who transitions from a private firm to a public agency retains ongoing loyalty duties to the former employer and client, requiring consent before participating in proceedings adverse to those parties
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Loyalty to a former employer does not permanently bar a public engineer from reviewing that employer's submissions, but it does require consent when the transition is recent and the matter was active during the employment relationship
invokedby: City Engineer J
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J's situation.
tensionresolution: BER resolved the tension by finding that temporal distance (more than one year) sufficiently attenuates the loyalty obligation to permit review without consent, absent active project overlap
textreferences: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client
textreferences: The BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.754594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked By City Engineer J Plan Review
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipal plan review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: City Engineer J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans must be conducted with objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, to ensure that the municipal plan review process serves its public protective function
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires not only actual impartiality but also the absence of reasonable public perception of bias; the public's expressed concern about J's prior employment relationship with BWJ implicates the objectivity principle even if J's review was substantively unbiased
invokedby: City Engineer J
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised.
tensionresolution: BER resolved the objectivity concern by applying a temporal threshold: sufficient temporal distance from prior employment is deemed to restore the capacity for objective review
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.759422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R
type: DesignErrorAcknowledgingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Principal Engineer R
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Principal Engineer R Post-Error Discovery
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Invoked By Principal Engineer R
has obligation: Firm BWJ Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation City C Subdivision
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Stormwater Runoff Exceedance
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening BWJ
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Proactive Risk Disclosure Client Post-Error Discovery
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Directed Stormwater Design
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Verification Stormwater Design
has obligation: Principal Engineer R Watershed Protection Design BWJ Subdivision Stormwater
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Firm BWJ', 'specialty': 'Subdivision stormwater design', 'applicable_obligations': ['NSPE III.1.a', 'NSPE III.8']}
caseinvolvement: Principal Engineer R of Firm BWJ prepared the subdivision stormwater design that is alleged to have errors resulting in post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements. Independent analysis by Firm IBM and actual flooding evidence indicate design failure. Engineer R bears obligations under NSPE III.1.a and III.8 to acknowledge the errors, verify IBM's analysis, and coordinate remediation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:36:28.229762+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'design_impacts', 'target': 'Affected Property Owner Stakeholder'}
relationships: {'type': 'design_subject_to_review_by', 'target': 'Third-Party Engineering Reviewer (Firm IBM)'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
relationships: {'type': 'submitted_to', 'target': 'Municipal Plan Review Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Design Error Acknowledging Engineer
sourcetext: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1.a and acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1.a and acknowledge the runoff problem
textreferences: the second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R's actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.752992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance Verification Invoked By BWJ Stormwater Design
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationinStormwaterDesign
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BWJ subdivision stormwater design; City C peak flow regulatory requirements; IBM independent hydrological analysis
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Developer G project schedule and cost constraints
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development conditions before certifying and submitting the plans for approval
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The combination of actual flooding and IBM's independent modeling indicating post-development runoff exceedance suggests the original design verification was inadequate; the regulatory compliance obligation required more rigorous hydrological analysis before certification
invokedby: Firm BWJ
invokedby: Principal Engineer R
principleclass: Regulatory Compliance Verification in Stormwater Design
sourcetext: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
tensionresolution: Regulatory compliance obligations are non-negotiable and cannot be subordinated to client economic interests; actual flooding outcomes confirm that the design failed to meet the applicable standard
textreferences: an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.759125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Transition
type: FormerEmployerLoyaltyBoundaryinPublicRoleObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recusal Former Employer BWJ Review
defeasible under: Conflict of Interest State — City Engineer J
defeasible under: Engineer J Temporal Gap Mitigation
casecontext: City Engineer J transitioned from private Firm BWJ to the public City Engineer role. BER Case 14-8 established that engineers transitioning from private to public roles retain ongoing loyalty obligations to former employers and clients, requiring consent before adverse participation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Loyalty to Former Employer and Client Invoked By City Engineer J via BER 14-8
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City Engineer J
obligationclass: Former Employer Loyalty Boundary in Public Role Obligation
obligationstatement: City Engineer J was obligated to honor ongoing loyalty duties to former employer Firm BWJ and its clients, including refraining from participating in proceedings adverse to BWJ's interests without first obtaining consent from BWJ and its clients, particularly if J's transition to City C occurred during or shortly after active project work involving BWJ.
sourcetext: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client.
temporalscope: Upon and following transition from Firm BWJ to City C, particularly during any proceedings involving BWJ's work
textreferences: BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J's situation.
textreferences: Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client.
textreferences: the BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.759862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Error Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Principal Engineer R
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BWJ subdivision stormwater design; IBM independent analysis findings; flooding experienced by adjacent property owners
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional Reputation and Honor Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design allegedly produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements, is obligated to review IBM's independent analysis, verify its findings against R's own work, acknowledge the runoff problem if confirmed, and engage BWJ's risk management team to develop a corrective design
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:43:59.158392+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The affirmative obligation to acknowledge errors is triggered by the combination of actual flooding outcomes and IBM's independent modeling, both of which indicate non-compliance with City C's peak flow requirements; R cannot ethically await formal legal proceedings before acknowledging the deficiency
invokedby: Principal Engineer R
principleclass: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: The second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R's actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability and public welfare obligations override any interest in avoiding acknowledgment of error; BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 establish that discovery of inaccurate data or erroneous conclusions triggers an affirmative disclosure duty
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
textreferences: Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue
textreferences: Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors
textreferences: once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.758685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recusal Former Employer BWJ Review
type: ConflictofInterestRecusalfromFormerEmployerWorkObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Transition
competes with: City Engineer J Objectivity Plan Review BWJ Subdivision
defeasible under: Conflict of Interest State — City Engineer J
defeasible under: Engineer J Temporal Gap Mitigation
casecontext: City Engineer J, formerly employed by Firm BWJ, reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C, prompting public concern about conflict of interest. The BER conditionally found no ethical issue only because it assumed J left BWJ at least one year before the subdivision work was under contract.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Recusal Invoked By City Engineer J
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City Engineer J
obligationclass: Conflict of Interest Recusal from Former Employer Work Obligation
obligationstatement: City Engineer J was obligated to recuse themselves from reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C if J's transition from BWJ to City C occurred within approximately one year before the subdivision work was under contract, given the appearance of bias and potential ongoing loyalty obligations to the former employer.
sourcetext: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
temporalscope: At the time of reviewing and approving BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
textreferences: The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
textreferences: if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
textreferences: members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.759723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Verification Stormwater Design
type: RegulatoryComplianceVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm BWJ Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation City C Subdivision
defeasible under: Subdivision Stormwater Regulatory Non-Compliance
casecontext: The subdivision stormwater design was submitted to City C and approved without adequate verification that post-development runoff would not exceed pre-development conditions. IBM's subsequent independent analysis revealed the design failed to meet this regulatory standard.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Regulatory Compliance Verification Invoked By BWJ Stormwater Design
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ
obligationclass: Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development conditions before submitting the plans to City C for approval.
sourcetext: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement
temporalscope: Before submitting subdivision plans to City C for administrative review and approval
textreferences: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.761256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Firm BWJ Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation City C Subdivision
type: RegulatoryStormwaterComplianceRemediationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Principal Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Verification Stormwater Design
defeasible under: Subdivision Causation Complexity
defeasible under: Third-Party Property Owner Actions Complicating Flood Causation
prevails over: Principal Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Verification Stormwater Design
casecontext: The subdivision stormwater design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development conditions, resulting in actual flooding and property damage to adjacent owners. Both IBM's independent modeling and empirical flooding evidence confirmed the non-compliance.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Design
derived from principle: Regulatory Compliance Verification Invoked By BWJ Stormwater Design
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R
obligationclass: Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to design and implement a workable corrective stormwater management system that brings the subdivision into compliance with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development conditions, thereby eliminating the flooding harm experienced by adjacent property owners.
sourcetext: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
temporalscope: Following acknowledgment of the error and completion of fault allocation; ongoing until corrective design is constructed and verified
textreferences: Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
textreferences: both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction

Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
type: Post-ErrorIndependentVerificationBeforeAcknowledgmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Principal Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Stormwater Runoff Exceedance
competes with: Principal Engineer R Proactive Risk Disclosure Client Post-Error Discovery
defeasible under: Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Obligation
casecontext: Firm IBM produced independent stormwater modeling showing runoff exceedance. The BER directed that R should review and verify IBM's analysis against R's own work before acknowledging the problem, establishing a verification step prior to formal acknowledgment.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Principal Engineer R
discoveredincase: 11
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 11
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:45:45.413800+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Principal Engineer R
obligationclass: Post-Error Independent Verification Before Acknowledgment Obligation
obligationstatement: Principal Engineer R was obligated to independently review and verify Firm IBM's analysis against R's own original stormwater design calculations before formally acknowledging the error, ensuring that any acknowledgment was grounded in R's own professional judgment and not merely uncritical acceptance of IBM's findings.
sourcetext: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
temporalscope: Before formally acknowledging the runoff problem, upon receipt of IBM's analysis
textreferences: After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
wasattributedto: Case 11 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:54:41.760133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 11 Extraction