The Board cited this case as the primary precedent addressing the sealing of plans not personally prepared by the engineer, and then clarified its earlier conclusion to better reflect actual engineering practices.
The Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the capability to recognize that the code of ethics must reflect generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession and to identify when a prior ruling imposed an impossible standard inconsistent with actual practice, supporting clarification of that ruling.
The BER recognized that its prior ruling in BER Case 86-2 had generated significant professional concern because it appeared inconsistent with prevailing practice, and exercised the capability to clarify that ruling to align ethical standards with actual professional norms.
Modifying the conclusion of BER Case 86-2 to reflect actual engineering practice regarding sealing of documents prepared by others, on the ground that the prior ruling was inconsistent with prevailing professional norms
The Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard upon engineers, but rather must establish a bench mark of reasonable and rational methods of practice for it to maintain its credibility and adherence.
This Board has long noted that the Code of Ethics is not a static document and must reflect and be in consonance with generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession.
Via class 'Code Evolution Awareness Capability': Ethical Learning is defined as the ability to adapt to new cases, changing standards, and novel situations while maintaining consistency. Code Evolution Awareness Capability shares the adaptation dimension but is specifically directed at institutional recognition that ethical standards must track prevailing practice rather than impose impossible ideals. The match is a medium-confidence variant: the existing class captures individual-level learning and adaptation, while this capability is more institutional and interpretive in character.
BER Code Prevailing Practice Interpretation
BER case in which the Board revisited and clarified its prior opinion in BER Case 86-2, finding that the earlier literal reading of direction and control imposed an impossible standard inconsistent with prevailing engineering practice, and modifying the interpretation to require detailed review rather than personal preparation.
Code Prevailing Practice Conformance Constraint
The Board of Ethical Review was constrained to interpret the NSPE Code of Ethics in a manner consistent with generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession, and was required to revise or clarify prior interpretations that imposed impossible or idealistic standards placing a significant number of practitioners in unavoidable conflict with the code.
BER institutional practice and the Board's own articulation of its interpretive obligations
At the time of issuing any ethics opinion interpreting the NSPE Code
The rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2, raised a considerable degree of discussion within the engineering community because to many it appeared to be inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession.
Precedent Modification Reasoning Capability
The Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the capability to identify grounds for modifying the prior ruling in BER Case 86-2, to articulate a reasoned basis for the modification, and to characterize the change as a clarification rather than a reversal in order to preserve doctrinal continuity.
The BER applied precedent modification reasoning to reconcile its current holding with BER Case 86-2, identifying the prior ruling as imposing an impossible standard and clarifying it to align with prevailing practice while maintaining doctrinal continuity.
Articulating that the modification of BER Case 86-2 reflected actual professional practice rather than an impossible ideal, and explaining that the change was a clarification rather than a reversal for those troubled by the prior decision
For that reason, we think the Board's conclusion in BER Case 86-2 should be modified to reflect actual practices which exist within engineering and not impose a impossible standard upon practice.
We do not believe this represents a reversal of the Board's decision in BER Case 86-2, but rather a clarification, particularly for those who were troubled by the Board's discussion and conclusion in that case.
Via class 'Precedent Modification Reasoning Capability': Precedent Analogical Reasoning Capability addresses identifying prior rulings, analyzing factual distinctions, and reasoning from those distinctions to determine whether the precedent applies. Precedent Modification Reasoning Capability is a related but distinct concept: it concerns the ability to reason about when and how a prior ruling should be modified or clarified rather than simply applied or distinguished. The match is medium confidence as a variant of the existing class, with the modification and clarification dimension being the distinguishing feature.
Precedent Analogical Reasoning Capability
Guided by Professional Accountability and Alignment with Prevailing Practice without yet fulfilling or violating any obligation, this action sits at the center of the normative tension that Technology Adoption Decision helps produce, because how delegated sealing is handled determines whether the profession can absorb CADD workflows without eroding accountability.
Because this action fulfils Responsible Charge and Professional Competence through direct oversight guided by Direction and Control, it establishes the baseline standard of care that makes any downstream conflict between strict and delegated sealing practices meaningful rather than arbitrary.
CausalLink_Precedent Clarification Ruling
Because this action fulfils Alignment with Prevailing Practice and Supervisory Oversight and causes both Precedent Moderation Outcome and Community Practice Normalization, it carries the highest normative weight in the chain, translating the controversy generated upstream into durable guidance that shapes how engineers across the profession understand their sealing obligations going forward.
CausalLink_Strict Sealing Standard Ruling
By fulfilling Responsible Charge and Public Protection, this ruling directly causes Professional Controversy Emergence, which means the strictness of the standard is not merely symbolic but is the productive force that compels the profession to confront and articulate where the line of responsible oversight actually falls.
Because this action causes Standard Conflict Identified alongside Technology Evolution, its guidance by Professional Accountability and Understanding of CADD Limitations matters greatly, since failing to reason carefully about those limitations is what generates the downstream controversy that the Board of Ethical Review must then resolve.
It was ethical for Engineer A, a registered professional engineer to sign and seal documents he prepared using a CADD system.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A may ethically seal CADD-prepared documents, the analysis must recognize that the ethical permissibility of that sealing is conditioned on Engineer A possessing genuine competence in the subject matter of the documents—not merely familiarity with the CADD tool itself. CADD is properly understood as a drafting and production instrument, not a substitute for the engineering judgment that underlies the content of the documents. Accordingly, if Engineer A lacks demonstrable proficiency in the CADD system to the degree that he cannot detect system-introduced errors, formatting anomalies, or automated output deviations from his intended design, the act of sealing those documents would be ethically compromised regardless of the Board's general approval of CADD-assisted sealing. The seal represents a personal attestation of responsible charge over the substantive engineering content, and that attestation cannot be satisfied by reliance on the tool's output alone. Engineer A's ethical standing therefore depends on a two-part competence requirement: mastery of the engineering subject matter and sufficient working knowledge of the CADD system to verify that the tool faithfully rendered his professional intent.
The Board's approval of Engineer A's sealing of personally prepared CADD documents implicitly raises an unaddressed concern about automated outputs embedded within those documents. Modern CADD systems frequently incorporate parametric calculations, automated code-compliance checks, and structural analysis modules whose outputs appear in the final sealed documents but were not manually derived by the engineer. When Engineer A seals such documents, the seal communicates to the public and to downstream users that a licensed professional engineer has exercised responsible charge over all technical content. If portions of that content were generated by automated routines that Engineer A did not independently verify through engineering judgment, the seal may misrepresent the depth of personal technical authorship. The Board's ruling does not resolve this tension, and the profession should understand that ethical sealing of CADD-prepared documents requires Engineer A to independently validate any automated analytical outputs—not merely review the visual presentation of the finished document—before affixing the seal. Failure to do so risks normalizing a practice in which the engineer's seal certifies the tool's work rather than the engineer's own professional judgment.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B may ethically seal documents prepared by subordinates under his direction and control, while correct as a general proposition, leaves critically underspecified what constitutes adequate direction and control in the CADD context. The phrase 'direction and control' has historically been interpreted to require that the supervising engineer possess sufficient knowledge of the work to detect and correct errors, not merely that a supervisory relationship formally exists. In the CADD environment, this standard demands more than a review of finished visual output. Engineer B must have been sufficiently engaged throughout the preparation process—through review of design assumptions, intermediate outputs, and verification of automated calculations—to be able to assert genuine responsible charge. Where Engineer B's CADD proficiency is materially inferior to that of the subordinates producing the work, the risk arises that the supervisory relationship is nominal rather than substantive, and the seal becomes a credential of convenience rather than a certification of professional oversight. The Board should have articulated minimum procedural expectations—such as documented review milestones, sign-off on critical design decisions, and verification of automated outputs—to give the direction and control standard operational meaning in delegated CADD work contexts.
A meaningful but unaddressed asymmetry exists between Engineer A's and Engineer B's ethical positions despite the Board treating both as equivalent instances of permissible CADD-assisted sealing. Engineer A seals work he personally prepared, meaning his knowledge of the document's content is direct and first-hand; his responsible charge is grounded in authorship. Engineer B seals work prepared by others, meaning his knowledge of the document's content is necessarily mediated through supervision; his responsible charge is grounded in oversight. These are structurally different epistemic relationships to the sealed work, and they carry different risk profiles for public safety. Holding both to the same general ethical standard—that sealing is permissible when responsible charge exists—obscures the fact that Engineer B's responsible charge is inherently more difficult to verify and more susceptible to being nominal rather than substantive. The Board's analysis would have been strengthened by acknowledging this asymmetry explicitly and by articulating that Engineer B bears a heightened affirmative obligation to demonstrate the quality of his supervisory engagement, rather than allowing the mere assertion of direction and control to satisfy the responsible charge requirement.
The Board's ruling, read in conjunction with the principle that existing ethical codes can be interpreted to accommodate evolving technology, carries a latent risk that the profession must consciously manage: progressive normalization of reduced personal engagement with document content. Each successive generation of CADD tools increases the degree to which engineering outputs are automated, and each permissive ruling that treats the tool as merely a drafting instrument may be cited to justify sealing increasingly tool-generated content. Over time, this interpretive drift could hollow out the protective intent of the sealing requirement, which exists to ensure that a licensed professional has exercised independent engineering judgment over the work. The Board's conclusions are sound for the technology context in which they were rendered, but the profession should treat them as establishing a floor—not a ceiling—for responsible charge obligations. As CADD systems evolve toward greater automation and artificial intelligence integration, the ethical standards governing sealing must be revisited to ensure that the direction and control standard continues to require genuine, substantive professional judgment rather than merely formal supervisory authority over an increasingly autonomous production process.
It was ethical for Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, to sign and seal documents which are the work of others using a CADD system working under his direction and control.
In response to Q101, a cursory review of finished CADD output is insufficient to satisfy the 'direction and control' standard required for Engineer B to ethically seal delegated documents. Genuine responsible charge requires that Engineer B be meaningfully engaged throughout the work process—not merely at the point of final output review. This means Engineer B must understand the design intent, verify that subordinates correctly interpreted project requirements, and independently assess whether the CADD-generated documents accurately reflect sound engineering judgment. The Board's conclusion that sealing delegated CADD work is ethical implicitly assumes that 'direction and control' is substantive rather than nominal, but the Board does not define a minimum threshold. A review limited to visual inspection of finished drawings, without engagement in the underlying engineering decisions, would not constitute responsible charge and would render the sealing act ethically deficient regardless of the CADD medium used.
In response to Q102, an engineer's obligation of competence under Code Section II.2.a extends to sufficient familiarity with the CADD tools used to produce sealed documents, though full technical mastery of the software is not required. What is required is that the engineer possess enough understanding of how the CADD system generates its outputs—particularly any automated calculations, parametric outputs, or code-compliance checks—to critically evaluate whether those outputs are correct. An engineer who seals CADD-prepared documents without any ability to assess the reliability of the tool's outputs cannot be said to be exercising responsible charge over the subject matter of those documents. Where an engineer lacks CADD proficiency, the ethical obligation is either to acquire sufficient competence before sealing, to engage a qualified reviewer who can verify the tool's outputs, or to decline the assignment. Delegating CADD work to a more proficient subordinate does not eliminate this obligation for Engineer B; it merely shifts the form in which competence must be demonstrated from personal drafting skill to supervisory verification capability.
In response to Q103, sealing CADD-generated documents that contain automated calculations or parametric outputs the engineer did not manually derive does not inherently constitute a misrepresentation of personal technical authorship, provided the engineer has independently verified the correctness of those outputs through engineering judgment. The professional seal does not attest that the engineer personally performed every arithmetic operation or drafting stroke; it attests that the engineer has exercised responsible charge over the work and accepts professional accountability for its technical adequacy. However, if an engineer seals documents containing automated outputs that were never independently reviewed or validated—relying instead on the assumption that the software is correct—then the seal does become a misrepresentation, because the engineer is implicitly claiming a level of technical oversight that was not actually exercised. The ethical line is therefore not between manual and automated derivation, but between verified and unverified outputs, regardless of how they were produced.
In response to Q104, the Board's reliance on the general 'direction and control' standard without specifying minimum procedural safeguards creates an ethical gap that could be exploited in practice. While the Board correctly concludes that sealing delegated CADD work is ethically permissible, the absence of defined procedural requirements—such as documented review records, supervision logs, or verification checklists—means that the ethical standard is effectively self-reported and unverifiable. This is particularly problematic because the consequences of inadequate supervision fall on the public rather than the engineer. The Board should have articulated, at minimum, that Engineer B must be able to demonstrate, if called upon, that substantive supervisory engagement occurred. Without such a requirement, the ethical conclusion risks functioning as a blanket permission that normalizes nominal oversight. Establishing documented procedural safeguards would not impose an unreasonable burden and would strengthen the integrity of the sealing requirement in a delegated CADD context.
In response to Q201, a genuine tension exists between the Technology Non-Substitution principle and the Competence Verification Requirement when CADD systems generate outputs that go beyond drafting into substantive engineering analysis. When a CADD system performs automated structural calculations, energy modeling, or code-compliance checks, it is no longer functioning purely as a drafting tool—it is performing engineering functions. In those cases, treating the system as a mere instrument analogous to a pencil understates the epistemic challenge the engineer faces. The engineer must not only understand the subject matter of the documents but must also understand the assumptions, limitations, and potential failure modes of the analytical modules embedded in the CADD system. The Technology Non-Substitution principle holds that CADD does not replace engineering judgment, but this principle becomes strained when the engineer lacks the competence to independently verify what the system has computed. The resolution is that the Competence Verification Requirement must expand proportionally with the analytical sophistication of the CADD tool: the more the tool does beyond drafting, the more the engineer must demonstrate independent verification capability before sealing.
In response to Q202, when a subordinate's CADD expertise substantially exceeds Engineer B's own technical proficiency with the tool, the practical capacity for genuine supervisory oversight is compromised in a way that the Board's general 'direction and control' standard does not adequately address. Engineer B's professional accountability for sealed documents does not diminish simply because the subordinate is more technically capable with the software; accountability is non-delegable. However, the form of oversight must adapt: Engineer B must focus supervisory engagement on the engineering substance of the work—verifying design assumptions, checking outputs against independent engineering calculations, and confirming that the documents reflect sound professional judgment—rather than on the mechanics of CADD operation. If Engineer B cannot perform this substantive engineering review because the CADD-generated outputs are opaque to him, then the responsible charge requirement is not satisfied regardless of the nominal supervisory relationship. The ethical resolution is that Engineer B's supervisory competence must be measured in engineering terms, not software terms, but that distinction only holds where the CADD system's outputs are independently verifiable through engineering analysis.
In response to Q203, the BER Code Adaptability Clarification principle carries a genuine risk of progressively eroding the protective intent of the sealing requirement if it is applied without principled limits. Each successive BER ruling that interprets existing standards in light of new technology establishes a precedent that can be cited to justify further relaxation in the next technological iteration. If 'adequate personal review' is redefined with each generation of increasingly automated CADD tools to mean whatever review is practically feasible given the tool's complexity, the standard effectively tracks technological capability downward rather than holding engineers to a fixed floor of accountability. The protective function of the seal—public assurance that a qualified engineer has personally verified the work—is undermined if the meaning of 'verified' is continuously renegotiated. The Code Adaptability principle should therefore be applied asymmetrically: it should be used to clarify that new tools are permissible, but not to reduce the substantive depth of review that the sealing obligation requires. The floor of responsible charge must remain constant even as the tools used to meet it evolve.
In response to Q204, holding Engineer A and Engineer B to the same ethical standard obscures a meaningful epistemic difference that has practical implications for public safety. Engineer A, who personally prepared the CADD documents, possesses direct knowledge of every design decision, input assumption, and output generated during the preparation process. Engineer B, who supervised others, possesses only the knowledge that supervisory engagement permitted him to acquire—which is necessarily less complete and more dependent on the quality of communication between Engineer B and subordinates. The Board's conclusions treat both scenarios as ethically equivalent, which is defensible as a matter of formal professional accountability—both engineers are fully responsible for what they seal—but it is misleading as a description of the epistemic basis for that accountability. A more nuanced standard would acknowledge that Engineer B's responsible charge obligation is more demanding in process terms precisely because his direct knowledge of the work is more limited: he must compensate for reduced personal authorship with more rigorous supervisory verification. Calibrating the standard differently for each scenario would not diminish Engineer B's accountability but would more accurately describe what that accountability requires in practice.
In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A fulfills a categorical duty of professional accountability when signing and sealing personally prepared CADD documents, provided that the seal is accompanied by genuine responsible charge over the work. The Kantian framework supports this conclusion because the duty to seal is grounded in the engineer's role as a professional who has undertaken a public obligation of competence and accountability—a duty that is not contingent on the drafting medium. The CADD system, as a tool, does not alter the moral structure of the obligation: Engineer A is the rational agent who made the engineering decisions, and the seal is the formal expression of that agency. However, the deontological analysis also reveals a limit: if Engineer A sealed documents without having exercised the judgment that the seal represents, the act would be a violation of the categorical duty to be truthful in professional representations, regardless of whether the documents happened to be correct. The ethical permissibility of CADD-assisted sealing is therefore deontologically grounded not in the tool but in the authenticity of the responsible charge that precedes the sealing act.
In response to Q302, from a deontological standpoint, the mere assertion of direction and control is insufficient to satisfy Engineer B's duty of responsible charge. A deontological analysis requires that duties be genuinely performed, not merely claimed. The duty of responsible charge is a substantive obligation—it requires that Engineer B actually exercise the supervisory judgment the role demands, not simply occupy the supervisory position. If Engineer B's direction and control consisted only of assigning the work and reviewing the finished output without engaging in the intermediate engineering decisions, the duty is formally claimed but substantively unfulfilled. The deontological framework therefore supports the conclusion that Engineer B must be able to demonstrate verifiable supervisory engagement—not as a bureaucratic formality, but as evidence that the duty was actually discharged. A seal affixed without genuine responsible charge is, from a deontological perspective, a false professional representation and a violation of the duty of honesty, regardless of whether the underlying documents are technically correct.
In response to Q303, from a consequentialist perspective, the Board's permissive ruling on CADD-assisted sealing produces net positive outcomes for engineering practice and public safety when the responsible charge standard is genuinely observed, but carries a non-trivial risk of harm if the ruling is interpreted as normalizing reduced personal engagement with document content. The positive consequences are clear: CADD technology improves drafting accuracy, enables complex design iterations, and increases productivity, all of which benefit the quality of engineering outputs when used by competent engineers exercising genuine oversight. However, the consequentialist analysis also requires attention to the systemic effects of the ruling. If practitioners interpret the Board's approval as implying that CADD-generated outputs require less rigorous review because the software is presumed reliable, the probability of undetected errors reaching construction increases. The net outcome depends critically on whether the profession maintains a robust culture of independent verification. The Board's ruling is consequentially sound only if accompanied by a clear professional norm that CADD outputs must be independently validated by the sealing engineer—a norm the Board's brief conclusions do not explicitly reinforce.
In response to Q304, from a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B demonstrates the professional virtues of diligence, integrity, and prudence only when supervisory engagement reflects genuine care for the quality and safety of the work, rather than mere procedural compliance with the direction and control requirement. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not by whether a threshold was crossed but by whether the action expresses the character of a responsible professional. An engineer of good character who seals delegated CADD work would not ask 'have I done enough to satisfy the standard?' but rather 'do I genuinely understand this work well enough to stake my professional reputation and the public's safety on it?' The virtuous engineer would engage substantively with subordinates throughout the design process, ask probing questions about engineering assumptions, and independently verify critical outputs—not because the rules require it, but because professional integrity demands it. Engineer B who seals documents after only superficial review may satisfy the letter of the direction and control requirement but fails the virtue ethics standard, because the character expressed by that conduct is one of professional convenience rather than professional responsibility.
In response to Q401, if Engineer A lacked demonstrable proficiency in the CADD system used to prepare the documents, the ethical permissibility of sealing those documents would depend on whether the lack of CADD proficiency translated into a lack of engineering oversight over the outputs. If Engineer A understood the engineering subject matter fully and could independently verify the correctness of the CADD-generated outputs through manual calculation or other means, the absence of CADD software proficiency would not necessarily defeat responsible charge—the engineer would be using the tool without fully mastering it, which is not categorically different from using any instrument whose internal mechanics are not fully understood. However, if the lack of CADD proficiency meant that Engineer A could not detect errors in the documents because the outputs were opaque to him, then sealing those documents would be ethically impermissible under Code Section II.2.b, which prohibits sealing documents dealing with subject matter in which the engineer is not competent. The responsible charge determination would turn on whether CADD-specific incompetence created a gap in engineering-level verification, not merely a gap in software operation.
In response to Q402, had Engineer B signed and sealed CADD-prepared documents without any documented record of supervisory direction or review, the ethical conclusion should have been different, or at minimum conditioned on the existence of substantive—if undocumented—supervisory engagement. The Board's conclusion that sealing delegated CADD work is ethical rests on the premise that direction and control was actually exercised; it does not endorse sealing in the absence of that oversight. Without any evidentiary basis for the direction and control claim, the sealing act would be ethically indefensible because it would represent a professional attestation unsupported by the underlying supervisory reality. While the Code does not explicitly require documentation of supervision, the absence of any record creates a practical and ethical problem: Engineer B cannot demonstrate responsible charge if challenged, and the profession cannot verify that the standard was met. A minimum evidentiary standard—sufficient to allow Engineer B to reconstruct the supervisory process if called upon in a disciplinary or legal proceeding—should be understood as implicit in the responsible charge obligation, even if not formally codified.
In response to Q403, if a CADD system introduced systematic errors into documents that Engineer A personally prepared but failed to detect during review, the Board's ethical approval of CADD-assisted sealing would not and should not shift moral responsibility toward the technology. The professional seal is a human act of attestation, and the engineer who affixes it accepts full professional accountability for the documents' content regardless of how errors were introduced. The risk that CADD systems may introduce systematic errors—through software bugs, incorrect default settings, or misapplied parametric rules—is a known category of risk that the engineer's review obligation is specifically designed to catch. If Engineer A's review was insufficient to detect systematic CADD errors, the ethical failure lies in the inadequacy of the review, not in the use of CADD. The profession's appropriate response to this risk is not to prohibit CADD use but to establish and enforce a professional norm that CADD outputs must be independently verified through engineering analysis before sealing—a norm that the Board's conclusions implicitly assume but do not explicitly articulate.
In response to Q404, a ruling that CADD-prepared documents could only be sealed by engineers who personally drafted every element without delegation would have severely impeded the adoption of CADD technology in engineering practice and would not have better served the public safety objectives underlying the sealing requirement. Such a ruling would have conflated the medium of production with the substance of engineering accountability, treating delegation as inherently incompatible with responsible charge—a position inconsistent with Code Section II.2.c, which explicitly permits engineers to accept responsibility for coordinating entire projects and sealing documents for work they did not personally perform, provided they are competent in the general area. The practical effect of a strict no-delegation ruling would have been to make CADD economically unviable for all but the smallest projects, forcing engineers to choose between technological efficiency and legal compliance. More importantly, it would have produced no safety benefit, because the quality of engineering review—not the identity of the drafter—is what protects the public. The Board's permissive ruling correctly identified that responsible charge, not personal drafting, is the operative standard, and that this standard can be satisfied in a delegated CADD environment when genuine supervisory oversight is exercised.
The Board resolved the tension between the Technology Non-Substitution principle and the Competence Verification Requirement by treating CADD as a drafting instrument rather than an independent analytical agent. Because the seal attests to the engineer's professional judgment over the subject matter—not to the mechanical means of producing the document—competence in the underlying engineering discipline remains the controlling standard. CADD proficiency is a secondary, instrumental requirement: an engineer who lacks it may still seal documents if the engineering content is within their competence, but an engineer who is competent in CADD yet lacks subject-matter expertise cannot ethically seal. This hierarchy subordinates tool-competence to disciplinary competence, preserving the protective intent of the sealing requirement while accommodating technological change. The resolution holds cleanly for Engineer A's scenario but becomes strained when CADD systems generate automated analyses or parametric outputs, because at that point the tool is no longer merely drafting—it is performing engineering functions that require independent validation, and the Technology Non-Substitution principle demands that the engineer, not the software, supply that judgment.
The Board's treatment of Engineer B's scenario reveals an unresolved tension between the principle of Professional Accountability for sealed documents and the practical structure of Responsible Charge over delegated CADD work. By affirming that sealing delegated work is ethical when performed under 'direction and control,' the Board implicitly equates the supervisory relationship with the depth of personal knowledge that the sealing requirement was designed to certify. This equation is defensible when the supervising engineer possesses sufficient subject-matter expertise to detect errors in the subordinate's output through meaningful review. However, the Board did not specify what 'direction and control' requires in practice—whether it demands continuous engagement, milestone reviews, documented sign-offs, or merely final inspection of finished output. This silence leaves the Professional Accountability principle formally intact while potentially hollowing it out operationally. The case therefore teaches that Responsible Charge, as a principle, must be understood as a substantive supervisory standard rather than a nominal designation: the ethical weight of the seal depends on whether the supervising engineer's engagement was sufficient to make the attestation of responsible charge genuinely truthful, not merely procedurally asserted.
The BER Code Adaptability Clarification principle—which permits existing ethical standards to be reinterpreted as technology evolves—was applied in this case to extend traditional sealing norms to CADD-produced documents without revising the underlying standards. This approach prioritizes continuity and practice-wide adoption of beneficial technology, but it carries a latent risk identified by the principle-tension between Code Adaptability and the CADD Use Technology Substitution Prohibition: each successive reinterpretation that accommodates a new technological capability can incrementally lower the effective threshold for what constitutes adequate personal review, until the cumulative effect diverges significantly from the original protective intent of the sealing requirement. The case teaches that Code Adaptability must be applied conservatively and with explicit articulation of the minimum conduct it still demands, rather than as a general license to treat new tools as ethically equivalent to prior practice without examining whether the new tool changes the nature of the engineer's engagement with the work. When CADD systems evolve from drafting aids to analytical engines, the Adaptability principle cannot be invoked to preserve a permissive ruling that was premised on the tool being merely a drawing instrument, because the factual predicate of that ruling no longer holds.
Should Engineer A sign and seal CADD-produced documents based on intermediate-level CADD proficiency, or must Engineer A first attain a higher level of demonstrated competence before sealing such documents?
Engineer A personally prepared engineering documents using CADD and then signed and sealed those documents. The central question is whether Engineer A had sufficient proficiency with the CADD system to take personal responsible charge of documents produced through it.
Proceed to sign and seal CADD-produced documents on the basis that intermediate CADD proficiency is sufficient for responsible charge, provided the engineering content itself reflects full technical competence.
Decline to seal CADD-produced documents until Engineer A has completed additional training to reach an advanced proficiency level, treating the sealing threshold as requiring mastery of the production tool.
Sign and seal the documents only after Engineer B, who holds advanced CADD proficiency, has reviewed the CADD-specific elements, treating Engineer A's intermediate proficiency as adequate for engineering content but supplemented for CADD execution.
When Engineer A seals CADD-produced documents, must Engineer A conduct a detailed independent review of the CADD output sufficient to assume full technical responsibility, or is a review calibrated to standard professional practice adequate?
Engineer A signed and sealed documents that were prepared using CADD technology. The question is whether the act of sealing those documents constituted a proper assumption of full responsibility for their content, including the accuracy of the CADD-generated output.
Review CADD-produced documents using the same professional judgment and verification standards applied to conventionally drafted documents, treating CADD as a production tool whose outputs are subject to normal engineering review.
Supplement standard review with a systematic check of CADD-specific outputs such as coordinate accuracy, layer assignments, and automated calculations, recognizing that CADD errors may not surface through ordinary engineering review.
Before sealing, require a second engineer to independently verify the CADD output against design intent, treating the CADD production step as introducing a category of risk that warrants a separate verification layer.
Should Engineer B seal documents prepared by Engineer A under supervision, relying on supervisory direction and control as the basis for responsible charge, or must Engineer B independently verify the CADD content to the same standard as if personally preparing the documents?
Engineer B supervised Engineer A's CADD work and also signed and sealed documents prepared by Engineer A. The question is whether Engineer B's supervisory role and advanced CADD proficiency created a distinct set of obligations regarding direction, control, and assumption of responsibility for subordinate CADD work.
Seal Engineer A's CADD documents on the basis that Engineer B directed the work throughout its preparation and reviewed the output, treating supervisory control as the foundation of responsible charge without requiring independent re-creation of the CADD work.
Before sealing, independently check each CADD-generated element against design specifications and calculations, treating the supervisory seal as requiring the same verification standard as personal preparation.
Require Engineer A to provide a written certification of CADD accuracy as a precondition to Engineer B's seal, distributing verification responsibility between the preparer and the supervising sealing engineer.
Should Engineer A and Engineer B adopt CADD technology for preparing and sealing engineering documents, or should they decline to use CADD until a higher standard of demonstrated proficiency and established supervisory protocols is in place?
Both Engineer A and Engineer B adopted CADD technology for the preparation of engineering documents. The question is whether adopting CADD as a production tool, rather than continuing with conventional drafting methods, was ethically permissible given the competence and oversight conditions present.
Proceed with CADD adoption for document preparation, ensuring that engineering judgment drives all design decisions and that CADD functions solely as a drafting and production tool subject to engineer review and control.
Defer CADD adoption until both engineers have reached advanced proficiency, treating the intermediate proficiency level as insufficient to ensure that technology does not inadvertently substitute for engineering judgment.
Adopt CADD exclusively for geometric drafting and layout tasks while continuing to perform all engineering calculations and design decisions through conventional methods, limiting the scope of CADD use to areas where non-substitution risk is lowest.
Should the ethical standards governing Engineer A and Engineer B's CADD document sealing be determined by applying existing code provisions to CADD as a new technology, or does CADD use require the development of distinct supplemental standards beyond those currently in the code?
The case raises the question of whether prevailing professional practice standards, as understood by the BER, adequately address the use of CADD technology in the preparation and sealing of engineering documents, or whether existing code provisions require reinterpretation or supplementation to govern CADD use.
Evaluate Engineer A and Engineer B's conduct under existing competence, responsible charge, and non-substitution principles, treating CADD as a new instance of a recurring question about technology adoption rather than a category requiring new rules.
Recommend that the profession develop supplemental guidance specifically addressing CADD proficiency thresholds, review protocols, and sealing responsibilities, treating CADD as sufficiently distinct from prior drafting technologies to warrant dedicated standards.
Treat CADD-specific sealing requirements as a matter for state licensing boards to address through regulation, applying the NSPE code only to the underlying engineering judgment obligations while deferring technology-specific rules to regulatory bodies.
Engineer A and Engineer B CADD usage during current case decision period
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system. Engineer B, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents which are the results of the efforts of others using a CADD system working under Engineer B's direction and control.
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.
Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.2.b
In deciding that it was unethical for him to seal plans that had not been prepared by him, or which he had not checked and reviewed in detail, the Board read the language in Section II.2.b. quite literally.
Read literally by the Board in BER Case 86-2 to determine the meaning of direction and control as conditions for ethically sealing plans, and revisited in the current case to clarify that standard.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'NSPE Code Provision'
The question arose because CADD technology entered professional practice before clear ethical guidance existed on whether using it to prepare documents satisfied or complicated the personal preparation standard embedded in sealing obligations. Engineer A's act of sealing his own CADD-prepared work forced a determination of whether the tool's involvement created a new competence condition that had to be met before the seal carried its traditional ethical weight.
This question emerged because Technology Evolution and Community Practice Normalization normalized delegated CADD work as a routine professional practice, creating a situation where the same sealing obligation was applied to two engineers whose actual knowledge of the sealed documents was acquired through fundamentally different processes. The Standard Conflict Identified event made visible the tension between treating the seal as a uniform public commitment and recognizing that the epistemic foundation behind Engineer A's seal and Engineer B's seal are not equivalent, which forced the question of whether a single accountability standard obscures a morally relevant distinction.
This question emerged because the adoption of CADD as a drafting tool created a gap between the formal act of sealing and the substantive competence obligations that the seal is meant to certify. The deontological framing sharpens the tension by asking whether the categorical duty attached to the seal is fulfilled by the act of sealing alone or requires an additional, independently verifiable condition of CADD proficiency and non-substitution of the tool for engineering judgment.
This question arose because the normalization of CADD-assisted document preparation in engineering practice created a gap between the traditional responsible charge standard, which assumed personal preparation, and the operational reality of supervisory sealing. The Strict Sealing Standard Ruling and the Precedent Clarification Ruling pulled in opposite directions, making it genuinely contested whether assertion of direction and control is a deontological fulfillment of duty or merely a procedural claim that falls short of the obligation.
This question emerged because the Precedent Moderation Outcome and Community Practice Normalization events created a situation where a permissive ruling is simultaneously defensible under a practice-adaptation warrant and contestable under a personal-accountability warrant. The consequentialist framing sharpens the conflict because it demands an empirical verdict on whether the ruling produces more safety benefit through broader CADD adoption or more safety harm through reduced document engagement, and the available data from the entities involved does not resolve that empirical question.
The question arose because CADD technology normalized a workflow in which engineers routinely seal documents they did not personally draft, and the procedural framework for responsible charge was clarified over time to permit this practice under conditions of direction and control. Virtue ethics then reintroduced a qualitative dimension that procedural clarification had set aside, asking whether Engineer B's supervisory conduct expressed the professional character the seal is meant to represent, not merely whether it crossed a compliance threshold.
This question emerged because the widespread adoption of CADD as the standard document preparation tool created a gap in existing sealing ethics guidance, which was written around manual drafting and did not specify whether proficiency in the preparation tool was a component of responsible charge or a separate competence obligation. The tension between the Technology Non-Substitution Obligation, which prohibits treating CADD as a substitute for engineering judgment, and the Responsible Charge Seal Obligation, which focuses on direction and control over the work product, left open the question of whether an engineer who lacks CADD proficiency can ethically seal documents the engineer could not have independently produced.
This question arose because the Board's ethical conclusion in the original case depended on Engineer B having exercised direction and control, but the case did not specify what evidence of that direction and control was required before sealing was permissible. The gap between the principle that responsible charge must be real and the practice of accepting supervisory claims without a minimum evidentiary threshold created a contested warrant structure that the question forces into the open.
This question arose because Technology Evolution introduced CADD as a Board-approved instrument, creating a gap between the traditional warrant that a sealing engineer personally guarantees every element of a document and the practical reality that systematic software errors can evade even competent review. The Standard Conflict Identified event made visible that the profession had not resolved whether Board approval of a tool implicitly redistributes moral responsibility when that tool fails silently, leaving the question of how the profession should respond structurally unresolved.
This question arose because the NSPE ruling resolved the immediate case by endorsing responsible charge supervision, but that resolution left open a deeper structural question about whether the public safety rationale underlying sealing requirements is better served by strict personal authorship or by rigorous supervisory accountability. The hypothetical stricter standard forces an examination of whether the Board's actual ruling optimized for professional practicality at the expense of safety, or whether it correctly recognized that responsible charge supervision is substantively equivalent to personal preparation for purposes of public protection.
This question emerged because the widespread adoption of CADD systems created a gap between the traditional sealing standard, which assumed personal drafting, and the operational reality in which registered engineers routinely direct subordinates who operate the CADD tools. The tension between the Responsible Charge Seal Obligation and the Supervisory Direction Control Obligation forced a public ethical question about whether Engineer B's conduct satisfied or violated the professional standard, given that both warrants draw legitimate authority from the NSPE Code of Ethics and neither fully resolves the ambiguity created by delegated CADD-assisted document preparation.
This question emerged because Technology Evolution normalized CADD-assisted delegation before any authoritative standard defined what direction and control means in that context, creating a gap between the Responsible Charge Seal Obligation and the Detailed Review Sealing Obligation. The Standard Conflict Identified event made visible that a cursory review of finished output could formally satisfy one reading of responsible charge while violating the substantive intent of another, forcing the question of which conduct actually satisfies the obligation.
This question emerged because Technology Evolution normalized CADD as the production medium for engineering documents at the same time that the Professional Competence and Responsible Charge obligations were written around content knowledge rather than tool knowledge. The resulting Standard Conflict Identified forced the profession to ask whether an engineer who understands the engineering content but not the CADD system producing it can honestly represent the full competence that a seal implies.
This question emerged because Technology Evolution introduced CADD tools that produce outputs through automated processes, creating a factual gap between the traditional assumption that a seal certifies manual personal derivation and the operational reality of modern engineering practice. The Standard Conflict Identified event made explicit that the existing sealing obligation language did not resolve whether responsible charge review of automated outputs satisfies the same ethical standard as personal manual preparation, forcing the Professional Controversy Emergence that the question now represents.
The question arose because the Board articulated a direction and control standard for delegated CADD sealing without specifying what procedural artifacts would satisfy that standard, leaving Engineer B's compliance unverifiable and creating a gap between the formal obligation and any enforceable measure of its fulfillment. As community practice normalized delegated CADD work and professional controversy emerged over what responsible charge actually requires in supervisory contexts, the absence of minimum procedural safeguards became a contested structural feature of the standard itself.
This question arose because Technology Evolution transformed CADD from a drafting instrument into a system capable of generating substantive engineering determinations, creating a factual gap between the original premise of the Technology Non-Substitution Obligation and current practice. The Standard Conflict Identified event made explicit that two independently valid warrants now reach incompatible conclusions when applied to the same sealing action, forcing a structural question about which warrant governs and under what conditions the other is rebutted.
This question arose because technology evolution created a structural mismatch between the legal form of responsible charge supervision and its substantive purpose of protecting the public through competent review. When a subordinate's CADD expertise exceeds the sealing engineer's, the data of the sealed document no longer reliably reflects the engineer's genuine oversight, forcing a contest between the warrant authorizing delegation-based sealing and the warrant requiring that the seal represent real technical accountability.
This question arose because two legitimate interpretive moves within the same ethical framework point in opposite directions. The BER Code Adaptability Clarification was issued precisely to prevent rigid application of rules written before CADD existed, but that same flexibility creates a mechanism by which the substantive protection offered by the Technology Substitution Prohibition can be gradually hollowed out through incremental redefinition of what responsible charge review requires.
Was it ethical for Engineer A, a registered professional engineer to sign and seal documents he prepared using a CADD system?
What specific level of review and verification must Engineer B perform over CADD-prepared work to satisfy 'direction and control' requirements, and is a cursory review of finished output sufficient to meet that standard?
Does an engineer's obligation to be competent in the subject matter of sealed documents extend to competence in the CADD tools used to produce them, and if so, what happens when an engineer lacks that technical proficiency?
When CADD-generated documents contain automated calculations or parametric outputs that the engineer did not manually derive, does sealing those documents constitute a misrepresentation of the engineer's personal technical authorship?
Should the Board have established minimum procedural safeguards—such as documented review checklists or supervision logs—that Engineer B must satisfy before sealing delegated CADD work, rather than relying solely on the general 'direction and control' standard?
Was it ethical for Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, to sign and seal documents which are the work of others using a CADD system, working under his direction and control?
Does the principle that CADD is merely a tool (Technology Non-Substitution) conflict with the Competence Verification Requirement when the tool itself generates outputs—such as automated structural analyses or code-compliance checks—that go beyond drafting and require independent engineering judgment to validate?
How should the tension between Engineer B's Professional Accountability for sealed documents and the practical reality of Responsible Charge over delegated CADD work be resolved when the subordinate's CADD expertise exceeds Engineer B's own, potentially undermining genuine supervisory oversight?
Does the BER Code Adaptability Clarification principle—which allows existing ethical standards to be interpreted in light of evolving technology—risk undermining the CADD Use Technology Substitution Prohibition by progressively relaxing what counts as adequate personal review, thereby eroding the protective intent of the sealing requirement?
When Engineer A's Professional Accountability for personally prepared CADD documents is compared with Engineer B's Professional Accountability for supervisory-sealed documents, does holding both to the same ethical standard obscure a meaningful difference in the depth of personal knowledge each engineer possesses about the work, and should the standard therefore be calibrated differently for each scenario?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A fulfill a categorical duty of professional accountability when signing and sealing CADD-prepared documents, given that the seal represents a personal attestation of competence and responsible charge regardless of the drafting tool used?
From a deontological standpoint, does Engineer B satisfy the duty of responsible charge when sealing documents prepared by subordinates using a CADD system, and does the mere assertion of direction and control constitute sufficient fulfillment of that duty, or must the duty require demonstrable, verifiable supervisory engagement?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's permissive ruling on CADD-assisted sealing produce net positive outcomes for public safety and engineering practice, or does it risk normalizing reduced personal engagement with document content, thereby increasing the probability of undetected errors reaching construction or implementation?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer B demonstrate the professional virtues of diligence, integrity, and prudence when affixing a seal to documents produced by subordinates through a CADD system, and does the quality of supervisory engagement reflect the character expected of a responsible professional engineer rather than merely satisfying a procedural threshold?
If Engineer A lacked demonstrable proficiency in the CADD system used to prepare the documents, would the act of signing and sealing those documents still be considered ethical, and how would the absence of CADD competence affect the responsible charge determination?
What if Engineer B had signed and sealed CADD-prepared documents without any documented record of supervisory direction or review — would the Board's ethical conclusion have changed, and what minimum evidentiary standard of direction and control should be required before sealing delegated work?
Had the CADD system introduced systematic errors or design flaws into the documents that Engineer A personally prepared but failed to detect during review, would the Board's ethical approval of CADD-assisted sealing implicitly shift moral responsibility toward the technology rather than the engineer, and how should the profession respond to that risk?
If the NSPE Board had instead ruled that CADD-prepared documents could only be sealed by engineers who personally drafted every element without delegation, how would that stricter standard have affected the adoption of CADD technology in engineering practice, and would such a ruling have better served or undermined the public safety objectives underlying the sealing requirement?
Given that Engineer A was the originating author of the engineering work and CADD served only as the medium of expression, the board concluded that sealing was ethical because the seal accurately attested to his personal responsible charge over the content, not merely over the tool used to render it.
Given that the seal represents an attestation of responsible charge rather than personal authorship of every calculation, the conclusion holds that sealing CADD-generated automated outputs is ethical when the engineer has independently verified those outputs. The ethical line runs between verified and unverified outputs, not between manual and automated derivation, and the resolution would be defeated if the engineer treated software-generated results as presumptively correct without applying independent engineering judgment to confirm them.
Given that the Board's ruling created no mechanism for verifying whether genuine supervisory engagement occurred, the conclusion finds that the ethical approval functions as blanket permission rather than a meaningful standard, and that this gap is ethically significant precisely because the public bears the risk of nominal oversight.
Given that some CADD systems generate outputs that constitute engineering analysis rather than mere drafting, the conclusion finds that treating such systems as simple instruments understates the epistemic burden on the sealing engineer, and that the competence obligation must scale with the analytical sophistication of the tool being used.
Given that accountability cannot be transferred to a more technically proficient subordinate, the conclusion finds that Engineer B must compensate for limited software proficiency by focusing supervisory review on engineering correctness, but that this workaround is only ethically sufficient when the outputs themselves remain accessible to independent engineering judgment.
Given that progressive reinterpretation of review adequacy in response to each new generation of CADD tools would erode the fixed floor of responsible charge, the conclusion finds that the adaptability principle must be bounded so that it authorizes new instruments without diminishing the depth of professional engagement those instruments require.
Given that Engineer B's knowledge of delegated CADD work is necessarily mediated through supervision rather than direct authorship, the conclusion finds that holding both engineers to formally identical standards without distinguishing their epistemic positions obscures what responsible charge actually demands of Engineer B in practice.
Given that Engineer A was the decision-making agent throughout preparation and used CADD only as a drafting instrument, the board concluded that sealing was ethically permissible because the seal authentically expressed Engineer A's responsible charge rather than delegating that charge to the tool.
Given that the board found a meaningful difference between claiming supervisory authority and actually exercising it, the conclusion treats a seal affixed on the basis of positional assertion alone as a false professional representation, and requires Engineer B to show that genuine judgment was applied at substantive decision points in the work.
Given that the net outcome of the permissive ruling depends entirely on how practitioners interpret and apply it, the board's consequentialist approval is conditional on the profession sustaining independent verification as a non-negotiable norm, and the ruling carries latent risk if that norm is not explicitly reinforced alongside the permissive conclusion.
Given that virtue ethics evaluates the character expressed by conduct rather than whether a threshold was crossed, the board concluded that Engineer B meets the ethical standard only when the supervisory engagement is substantively motivated by professional integrity, and that a seal affixed after cursory review fails this standard even if it technically satisfies the direction and control rule.
Given that Engineer B stood in a recognized supervisory relationship over the subordinates and the code already permitted sealing of coordinated work under responsible charge, the board concluded that the introduction of CADD as the drafting medium did not change the ethical permissibility of that sealing arrangement.
Given that the board distinguished between software-level incompetence and engineering-level incompetence, the conclusion permits sealing when CADD unfamiliarity does not impair the engineer's ability to verify outputs, but prohibits sealing when that unfamiliarity creates a verification gap that leaves the engineer unable to detect errors before the seal is affixed.
Given that the Board's original approval was conditioned on actual direction and control being exercised, the board concluded that sealing without any documented or reconstructible record of supervision would change or at minimum condition the ethical outcome, because the seal represents a personal attestation that cannot be truthfully made when the underlying supervisory reality is entirely unverifiable.
Given that systematic CADD errors are a foreseeable risk and the review obligation is specifically designed to catch them, the board concluded that moral responsibility remains entirely with Engineer A, because the Technology Non-Substitution principle prohibits offloading accountability to the software and the inadequacy of the review, not the use of CADD, constitutes the ethical failure.
Given that Code Section II.2.c already permits responsibility for coordinated and delegated work, and given that the quality of review rather than the identity of the drafter protects the public, the board concluded that a strict no-delegation ruling would have conflated the medium of production with the substance of engineering accountability and would have impeded CADD adoption without any corresponding safety benefit.
Given that CADD operated as a drafting instrument in Engineer A's scenario and the engineering content was within his competence, the board concluded that subject-matter competence is the controlling standard and CADD proficiency is instrumental, but this resolution becomes strained when the tool generates engineering outputs rather than merely drafting representations.
Given that the Board did not specify what direction and control requires in practice, the board identified an unresolved tension in which the Professional Accountability principle is preserved in form but potentially emptied in substance, and concluded that Responsible Charge must be understood as a substantive supervisory standard whose ethical weight depends on whether the supervising engineer's engagement was sufficient to make the attestation genuinely truthful.
Given that CADD was treated as a tool that mediates drafting without displacing the engineer's own technical judgment, the board concluded that Code Adaptability could legitimately extend traditional sealing norms to CADD-produced documents. The board reached this conclusion conditionally, however, warning that the same Adaptability principle cannot be stretched to cover a future state in which CADD generates substantive engineering outputs, because doing so would erode the personal-review standard that the sealing requirement was designed to protect.
Given that the seal communicates personal responsible charge over all technical content, the board conditioned the ethical permissibility of CADD-assisted sealing on Engineer A demonstrating that his CADD proficiency was adequate to verify tool fidelity, not merely that he possessed engineering expertise in the subject matter alone.
Given that automated CADD modules can generate technical content that appears authoritative but was not derived through the engineer's own reasoning, the board concluded that ethical sealing requires Engineer A to treat those outputs as subject to the same independent verification obligation that applies to any other technical content he attests to under his seal.
Given that the direction and control standard requires genuine rather than nominal oversight, the board concluded that Engineer B's ethical standing depends on whether his supervisory engagement was substantive enough to support the attestation his seal conveys, and that the profession should articulate minimum procedural safeguards to give that standard operational meaning in delegated CADD work contexts.
Given that Engineer A's responsible charge rested on direct authorship while Engineer B's rested on supervisory oversight, the Board reached a conclusion that treated both as ethically equivalent, but this conclusion holds only because the Board did not probe whether Engineer B's direction and control was substantive rather than nominal. The resolution would be strengthened, and the asymmetry resolved, if Engineer B were required to affirmatively demonstrate the quality of his supervisory engagement rather than merely assert it.
Given that the Board's ruling was grounded in a technology context where CADD was a drafting aid rather than an autonomous producer of engineering decisions, the conclusion that the ruling is sound holds only for that context. As automation increases, the profession must treat the ruling as a floor rather than a ceiling and must revisit the direction and control standard to ensure it continues to require substantive judgment rather than merely formal supervisory authority.
Given that the Board permitted sealing of delegated CADD work on the assumption that direction and control was genuine, the conclusion holds only when Engineer B's supervisory engagement is substantive and process-wide rather than confined to a final output check. A cursory review of finished drawings would defeat the ethical permissibility of the sealing act because it would reduce responsible charge to a formal label rather than a meaningful professional relationship with the work.
Given that Code Section II.2.a requires competence in the subject matter of sealed documents, the conclusion holds that this obligation extends to CADD tool outputs when those outputs go beyond drafting and include automated engineering determinations. The resolution is conditioned on the engineer being able to evaluate those outputs critically, and it would be defeated if the engineer sealed documents containing automated outputs that were never independently reviewed or validated.
property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
The code must establish a benchmark of reasonable and rational practice; when a prior interpretation is found to be inconsistent with prevailing practice and imposes an impossible standard, clarification is warranted.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.78
Competence in the tool is a prerequisite to professional use; an engineer who lacks understanding of CADD capabilities and limitations cannot take genuine responsibility for CADD-generated outputs.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
CADD and similar systems must assist the engineer rather than replace engineering judgment; adopting system-generated solutions the engineer has not prepared or fully understands violates this principle.
Sealing work prepared by subordinates is ethically permissible when the sealing engineer exercises genuine direction, control, and detailed review, not merely general supervision or confidence in subordinate ability.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
Supervisory sealing extends accountability to encompass both the technical content of the documents and the quality of the oversight exercised. Engineer B cannot disclaim responsibility by attributing errors to subordinates when the seal represents Engineer B's professional endorsement.
When an engineer seals documents prepared by others, responsible charge is satisfied only if the engineer exercised genuine direction and control over the work, not merely nominal supervisory title. The phrase 'direction and control' is the operative standard distinguishing legitimate sealing from rubber-stamping.
In a supervisory sealing context, the technology substitution prohibition requires that the supervising engineer's direction and control be substantive enough that the engineer's professional judgment, not the CADD tool's output, is the governing intellectual force behind the documents.
property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Document Certification Held; Engineer Responsible Charge Established; Delegated Preparation Acknowledged
Modified Sealing Standard Held; Detailed Review Requirement Active; Strict Personal Preparation Standard Terminated
Moderated Sealing Standard Active; Delegated Sealing Permissible
CADD-Based Practice Active; Delegation Norm Established
manual design techniques era before CAD adoption
the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD)
property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Professional Accountability; Code Compliance; Alignment with Prevailing Practice
property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Direction and Control; Responsible Charge; Supervisory Oversight
property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Responsible Charge; Professional Competence; Personal Preparation
Direction and Control; Professional Accountability; Code Compliance
Alignment with Prevailing Practice; Responsible Charge; Supervisory Oversight
Code Compliance; Professional Accountability; Direction and Control; Public Protection
Responsible Charge; Personal Preparation; Public Protection
Direction and Control; Code Compliance; Professional Accountability
Professional Accountability; Understanding of CADD Limitations
property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer A CADD Document Sealing; Engineer B CADD Document Sealing
property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
relation_type=peer; property=professionalPeerOf
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system
Engineer B, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents which are the results of the efforts of others using a CADD system working under Engineer B's direction and control
property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
invokedBy: Engineer A CADD Document Sealing
invokedBy: Engineer B CADD Document Sealing
Engineer A uses the CADD system as a tool to prepare documents, retaining personal authorship and professional judgment throughout, so that the technology assists rather than replaces engineering judgment.
Engineer B ensures that the CADD system used by subordinates serves as a production tool under professional direction rather than as a substitute for engineering judgment
Engineer A personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system and then signs and seals those documents, satisfying the responsible charge requirement through direct personal preparation.
By signing and sealing documents he personally prepared, Engineer A publicly accepts full professional accountability for the technical content and adequacy of those documents.
The Board requires that engineers using CADD have the requisite background, education, and training to be proficient with CADD dynamics and its limitations before using it in professional practice.
Engineer B seals documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction, satisfying responsible charge only if Engineer B has checked and reviewed those documents in some detail rather than relying solely on confidence in subordi
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system, satisfying the responsible charge requirement through substantive supervisory oversight
By signing and sealing documents produced by others under his direction and control, Engineer B publicly accepts full professional accountability for those documents
satisfying the responsible charge requirement through substantive supervisory oversight rather than pe
The Board modified its prior opinion in BER Case 86-2 to reflect actual prevailing practices in engineering, recognizing that requiring personal preparation of all sealed documents would impose an impossible standard
Engineer A was obligated to use the CADD system as a production tool under his own professional direction, retaining personal authorship and judgment throughout
Engineer A was obligated to assume full professional responsibility for the work product personally prepared using the CADD system
Engineer B was obligated to assume full professional responsibility for the work product prepared by subordinates under Engineer B's responsible charge as a condition of sealing those documents
Engineer B was obligated to sign and seal CADD-produced documents prepared by subordinates only when Engineer B had exercised genuine direction and control over the work
Engineer A was obligated to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the CADD system used to personally prepare engineering documents before signing and sealing those documents.
Engineer A was obligated to check and review in some detail the engineering documents personally prepared using the CADD system before affixing the seal
Engineer A was obligated to sign and seal only those CADD-produced documents that he personally prepared
Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the CADD system used by subordinates served as a production tool under professional direction rather than as a substitute for Engineer B's supervisory judgment and technical oversight
Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the CADD system used by subordinates served as a production tool under professional direction rather than as a substitute for Engineer B's own professional judgment and oversight
Engineer B was obligated to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the CADD system used by subordinates working under Engineer B's direction and control
Engineer B was obligated to check and review in some detail the engineering documents prepared by subordinates using the CADD system before affixing the seal
Engineer B was obligated to exercise genuine direction and control over the subordinates using the CADD system, including setting technical requirements, reviewing outputs, and verifying conformance with professional standards before sealin
property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Engineer A; Clients or public relying on sealed documents
Engineer B; Subordinate CADD operators; Clients or public relying on sealed documents
Engineer B; Subordinate preparers; Clients; Public relying on sealed documents
Engineer B; Subordinate preparers; Public relying on sealed documents
Engineer of record; Subordinates or CADD operators who prepared documents; Clients; Regulatory authorities; Public
Engineer of record; Clients; Public relying on sealed documents
property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer may not seal documents prepared by others without exercising genuine direction and control
Engineer must have sufficient technical knowledge to review and verify CADD outputs
property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Duty to verify accuracy and completeness of documents before sealing
Duty to maintain responsible charge over CADD-generated documents
Duty to exercise direction and control over subordinates using CADD tools
Engineer may not seal documents over which they did not exercise genuine responsible charge
Duty to verify that delegated work meets professional standards before sealing
Engineer must not seal documents based solely on confidence in an automated system without independent verification
Engineer must not seal documents based solely on general confidence in subordinates without detailed review
Obligation to check and review documents in sufficient detail before sealing
Obligation to assume full responsibility for the work product
Obligation to carefully direct, control, and review material prepared under responsible charge
Engineer must not treat CADD output as a substitute for professional competence
Engineer must not incorporate CADD-generated solutions that the engineer does not fully understand
Obligation to verify personal competence with the specific CADD system in use
Obligation to ensure CADD output is understood and not merely accepted on faith
property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD) and soon Artificial Intelligence (AE)
property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
the evolution that transformed yesterday's manual design techniques to Computer Aided Design (CAD), thence to Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD)
Engineer A must possess the capability to verify that CADD-produced documents bearing his seal were personally prepared by him, ensuring his seal accurately represents his own authorship rather than the output of a tool operating without his direct intellectual contribution.
Engineer A is a registered professional engineer who signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system. The obligation requires that the seal reflect genuine personal authorship.
Signing and sealing only those CADD documents that Engineer A personally prepared, thereby accurately representing authorship on sealed professional documents.
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'AI Authorship Representation Capability'
BER case addressing the meaning of direction and control in the context of CADD-assisted document preparation, clarifying that active involvement throughout preparation is required for responsible charge.
Engineer A was required to actively direct and control the CADD system's use in preparing engineering documents, establishing design requirements and constraints before and during preparation, rather than accepting system outputs without substantive professional involvement.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b, BER analysis
Throughout preparation of any CADD-assisted engineering documents
The key requirement is that an engineer possesses sufficient competence, assumes full responsibility for the work product and carefully directs, controls and reviews the material prepared under the engineer's responsible charge.
Via class 'Responsible Charge Direction Constraint': The existing Responsible Charge Direction Constraint is an exact match. The case text articulates the same requirement for active direction and control throughout preparation, and the same prohibition on treating post-preparation review alone as sufficient.
Engineer A CADD Document Detailed Review
BER case clarifying that personal preparation of documents is not required for ethical sealing, but that detailed review before sealing is the minimum procedural requirement for responsible charge.
Engineer A was required to check and review in some detail any CADD-prepared engineering documents before affixing a professional seal, so that the seal reflected genuine professional oversight of the document's technical content.
NSPE Code of Ethics, BER clarification of BER Case 86-2
Immediately before sealing any CADD-prepared document
We believe logic would dictate that in either case it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
We would conclude that it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
Engineer A must possess the capability to use the CADD system as a production tool under his own professional direction, retaining personal authorship and judgment over the documents produced rather than allowing the tool to substitute for his independent professional work.
Engineer A uses a CADD system to prepare documents he then seals. The Technology Tool Non-Substitution Obligation requires that the CADD system serve as a production tool under his direction rather than a substitute for his professional judgment.
Exercising personal intellectual direction over the CADD system during document preparation so that the resulting work product reflects Engineer A's own engineering judgment.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'AI Direction and Control Capability'
Engineer A was required to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the CADD system used to personally prepare engineering documents, including understanding the system's limitations and ensuring it served as a production tool rather than a substitute for professional judgment.
Engineer A personally prepares and seals CADD-produced engineering documents and must possess the technical competence to use the system appropriately without allowing it to substitute for professional judgment.
Personal preparation of engineering documents using a CADD system prior to signing and sealing those documents
The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology.
Via class 'CADD Proficiency Capability': The concept partially overlaps with AI Output Verification Capability in that both concern the engineer's ability to critically evaluate technology-generated outputs and avoid uncritical reliance on them. However, CADD Proficiency Capability is broader, encompassing the foundational technical training and background needed to use the system competently as a tool, not merely the verification of outputs. The existing class focuses on post-generation evaluation; this class includes the upstream competence to direct and understand the system. A medium-confidence variant match is appropriate, but the concept is sufficiently distinct in scope to warrant a separate class.
BER case addressing whether engineers may ethically sign and seal documents prepared using CADD systems, with the Board emphasizing that proficiency with CADD dynamics and limitations is a prerequisite for ethical use.
Engineer A was constrained to use the CADD system only to the extent that Engineer A possessed sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the system and its limitations, and could not rely on CADD outputs beyond the scope of that competence.
NSPE Code of Ethics, BER analysis of CADD use in professional practice
Throughout any engagement in which Engineer A used CADD to prepare documents for sealing
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint'
Responsible Charge Verification Capability
Engineer A was required to check and review in some detail the CADD-produced engineering documents personally prepared before affixing a professional seal, ensuring the review was sufficient to support responsible charge.
Engineer A personally prepares and seals CADD documents and must conduct a sufficiently detailed review to support responsible charge before applying the seal.
Conducting a detailed review of personally prepared CADD documents before signing and sealing them
Were we to decide BER Case 86-2 today, we would conclude that the it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Verification Capability'
Engineer A must possess the capability to conduct a review of CADD-produced documents sufficiently thorough to support the exercise of responsible charge before applying his professional seal.
Engineer A seals documents he personally prepared using CADD. Responsible charge requires that the seal be applied only after adequate verification of the work product.
Verifying that each CADD-produced document meets professional standards and reflects his own engineering judgment before sealing.
BER case clarifying that an engineer may seal documents not personally drafted if the engineer has exercised genuine direction and control and conducted a detailed review, but may not seal documents where responsible charge was absent.
Engineer A was constrained to affix a professional seal only to CADD-prepared documents over which Engineer A had exercised genuine responsible charge, meaning active direction and control throughout preparation combined with detailed review before sealing.
At the time of sealing any CADD-prepared document
The Code clearly indicates that engineers must not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.
Via class 'Responsible Charge Seal Constraint': The existing Responsible Charge Seal Constraint is an exact match. The case text directly addresses the conditions under which an engineer may ethically affix a professional seal, which is precisely the concept encoded in the existing class.
Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize when the CADD system was being used as a substitute for professional judgment rather than as a tool, and to resist incorporating system-generated solutions that Engineer A had not prepared or did not fully understand.
Engineer A personally uses CADD and must ensure the system aids rather than replaces professional engineering judgment when preparing documents for sealing.
Maintaining personal authorship and professional judgment over CADD-produced documents rather than accepting system outputs uncritically
In some instances, there may be a temptation for the engineer to incorporate a solution provided by the system which the engineer has neither prepared nor fully understands.
The key point is that the engineer must utilize such systems to assist the engineer in the performance of professional services and not employ such systems as a replacement for professional competence and expertise.
Via class 'Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability': AI Direction and Control Capability addresses the engineer's ability to exercise genuine professional direction over AI-assisted tools and ensure final work reflects independent judgment rather than uncritical acceptance of AI output. Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability is the same concept applied to CADD systems, with emphasis on the recognition dimension: identifying when the tool is crossing from aid to substitute. The match is a medium-confidence variant because the existing class emphasizes direction and control actions while this class emphasizes the perceptual and judgment dimension of recognizing the substitution risk.
Engineer B CADD Authorship Representation
Engineer B must possess the capability to accurately represent that documents sealed by Engineer B were produced by subordinates under Engineer B's direction and control, and to ensure that the seal does not misrepresent the nature of the supervisory relationship or the authorship of the underlying work.
Engineer B seals documents produced by others using CADD. Accurate representation of authorship and supervisory oversight is required to avoid misrepresenting the nature of the sealed work product.
Applying a seal to subordinate-prepared CADD documents only when the supervisory relationship genuinely supports responsible charge, accurately representing the authorship and oversight structure.
Engineer B, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents which are the results of the efforts of others using a CADD system working under Engineer B's direction and control.
BER case addressing whether engineers may ethically sign and seal documents prepared by subordinates using CADD systems, with the Board emphasizing that supervisory competence with CADD is required for responsible charge.
Engineer B was constrained to supervise subordinates using CADD only to the extent that Engineer B possessed sufficient background, education, and training to understand the system's outputs and limitations, so that direction and control over subordinates' CADD work was substantive rather than nominal.
Throughout any engagement in which Engineer B directed subordinates using CADD to prepare documents for sealing
Engineer B was required to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the CADD system used by subordinates working under Engineer B's direction, including understanding the system's capabilities and limitations well enough to direct, review, and take responsible charge of CADD-produced documents.
Engineer B as chief engineer directs subordinates using CADD and must possess sufficient CADD proficiency to exercise genuine direction and control and to conduct a meaningful detailed review before sealing.
Direction and review of subordinates using CADD systems to produce engineering documents that Engineer B then signed and sealed
Engineer B CADD Substitution Prohibition
BER case addressing the ethical limits of CADD use in a supervisory context, with the Board emphasizing that direction and control must be substantive and that CADD must not replace professional judgment.
Engineer B was prohibited from allowing subordinates' use of CADD to substitute for Engineer B's own professional direction and judgment, and was required to ensure that the CADD system served as a production tool under Engineer B's substantive oversight rather than as a replacement for competent supervisory review.
Via class 'Technology Substitution Constraint': The existing Technology Substitution Constraint is an exact match. The case text directly articulates the prohibition on using CADD as a crutch or substitute for judgment, which is precisely the concept encoded in the existing class.
Engineer B Detailed Review Subordinate Work
Engineer B was required to check and review in some detail the engineering documents prepared by subordinates using CADD before affixing a professional seal, ensuring the review was sufficient to support responsible charge over work not personally prepared.
Engineer B as chief engineer seals documents prepared by subordinates and must conduct a sufficiently detailed review to support responsible charge, distinguishing this from the general supervision found inadequate in BER Case 86-2.
Conducting a detailed review of subordinate-prepared CADD documents before signing and sealing them as chief engineer
Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.
Engineer B Responsible Charge Supervisory Seal
Engineer B must possess the capability to conduct a review of CADD-produced documents prepared by subordinates that is sufficiently thorough to support the exercise of responsible charge, and to assess whether that review is adequate before applying a professional seal.
Engineer B seals documents produced by others under his direction. The Responsible Charge Seal Obligation requires that the seal reflect genuine supervisory review adequate to support responsible charge.
Reviewing subordinate-prepared CADD documents with sufficient depth to verify technical adequacy and compliance with professional standards before sealing them as the responsible engineer.
Engineer B Subordinate Direction Control
BER case clarifying that general supervision, even when combined with involvement in concept and design requirements, does not satisfy the direction and control requirement unless accompanied by detailed review of completed documents.
Engineer B was required to actively direct and control subordinates using CADD in preparing engineering documents, establishing design requirements and constraints and remaining substantively involved throughout preparation, rather than relying on general supervision and confidence in subordinates' abilities.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b, BER analysis of BER Case 86-2
Throughout preparation of any documents prepared by subordinates under Engineer B's responsible charge
Engineer B Subordinate Work Detailed Review
BER case in which the chief engineer of a large firm sealed plans prepared by subordinates without detailed review, relying on general supervision and confidence in staff. The BER held this was unethical and clarified that detailed review is the minimum requirement for responsible charge sealing.
Engineer B was required to check and review in some detail all documents prepared by subordinates using CADD before affixing a professional seal, and could not satisfy this requirement by relying on general supervision or confidence in subordinates' abilities without conducting an actual detailed review.
Immediately before sealing any document prepared by subordinates
Engineer B Supervisory Direction Adequacy
Supervisory Direction Adequacy Capability
Engineer B was required to exercise genuine, substantive direction and control over subordinates producing CADD engineering documents, setting technical requirements, reviewing outputs critically, and ensuring the supervisory relationship was sufficient to support responsible charge before applying a professional seal.
Engineer B as chief engineer seals documents prepared by subordinates and must exercise genuine direction and control rather than mere general supervision, distinguishing the adequate supervisory relationship from the inadequate one found in BER Case 86-2.
Exercising direction and control over subordinates using CADD, including setting design requirements, reviewing progress, and conducting detailed review of outputs before sealing
We concluded, based upon a review of authoritative sources that the terms 'direction' and 'control' have a meaning which, when combined, would suggest that an engineer would be required to perform all tasks related to the preparation of the drawings, plans, and specifications in order for the engineer to ethically affix his seal.
Engineer B must possess the capability to exercise genuine direction and control over subordinates using the CADD system, including setting technical requirements, reviewing outputs critically, and ensuring that the work produced reflects professional engineering judgment rather than uncritical tool output.
Engineer B is a registered professional engineer who signs and seals documents produced by subordinates using a CADD system working under Engineer B's direction and control. The Supervisory Direction Control Obligation requires genuine substantive oversight.
Directing subordinates in the preparation of CADD documents, reviewing their work for technical adequacy, and ensuring the final products reflect Engineer B's supervisory engineering judgment before sealing.
Engineer B Supervisory Direction Control CADD Delegation
Engineer B oversees subordinates using a CADD system and seals the resulting documents. The constraint requires that direction and control be exercised throughout preparation, not only at the review stage after documents are complete.
Engineer B must actively direct and control the work of subordinates using the CADD system from the outset of document preparation, including setting technical requirements and constraints before delegation, and critically evaluating outputs rather than accepting completed documents without substantive independent review.
NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Code Section II.2.b; NSPE BER Case 86-2
Throughout the preparation of all CADD-produced documents by subordinates
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Direction Constraint'
Engineer B Technology Non-Substitution Supervisory CADD
Engineer B directs subordinates using a CADD system and seals the resulting documents. The constraint prohibits allowing the CADD system to substitute for the professional direction and control that responsible charge requires.
Engineer B must ensure that the CADD system used by subordinates functions as a production tool under professional direction rather than as a substitute for engineering judgment, and must not treat the system's outputs as a replacement for the substantive supervisory oversight required to exercise responsible charge.
Throughout preparation and sealing of CADD-produced documents by subordinates
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Technology Substitution Constraint'
Engineer B Technology Non-Substitution Supervisory
Engineer B was required to ensure that the CADD system used by subordinates served as a production tool under professional direction rather than a substitute for professional judgment, and to recognize when subordinates' use of the system exceeded the bounds of directed professional work.
Engineer B as chief engineer must ensure that the CADD system used by subordinates does not substitute for the professional judgment that Engineer B is responsible for exercising through direction and control.
Exercising genuine direction and control over subordinates' CADD use to ensure outputs reflected professional engineering judgment rather than uncritical system reliance
CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement. That translates to a scenario for potential liability.
Current case, upon issuance of BER ruling
1986, shortly after BER Case 86-2 ruling
CADD adoption before Artificial Intelligence (AI) adoption
Precedent Clarification Ruling → Community Practice Normalization
based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2 , we believe logic would dictate that in either case it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail
Precedent Clarification Ruling -- Board permits sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans
Delegated Work Sealing -- Engineer B seals CADD documents prepared by others under his direction and control
Community Practice Normalization -- Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing practice is recognized as ethical
Under the strict 86-2 standard, Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing would have been deemed unethical
Detailed review of the plans by the sealing engineer
Engineer B's practice of sealing CADD work prepared by others under his direction and control
Modified ruling permitting sealing of reviewed delegated work
Modified ruling combined with Engineer B's review-based delegated sealing rendering the practice ethical
Technology Evolution → Standard Conflict Identified
This language in the Code articulates an important point with respect to the use of CADD and similar systems in the development of documents and plans for the design of facilities and other projects.
Technology Evolution -- Engineering practice evolves from manual drafting through CAD to CADD
Technology Adoption Decision -- Engineers and firms adopt CADD systems in producing design documents
Standard Conflict Identified -- Question arises whether engineers may ethically seal CADD-produced documents prepared by others
Without the technology evolution to CADD, the question of whether sealing CADD-produced delegated work is ethical would not have arisen
Code language prohibiting sealing documents not prepared under direction and control
Evolution of design practice from manual drafting to CAD then CADD
Use of CADD systems producing results from the efforts of others
Engineering profession (technology adopters)
CADD-produced documents combined with Code's direction-and-control language creating ambiguity about sealing
Strict Sealing Standard Ruling → Professional Controversy Emergence
The rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2 , raised a considerable degree of discussion within the engineering community because to many it appeared to be inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession
Strict Sealing Standard Ruling -- Board rules it unethical to seal plans not personally prepared in BER Case 86-2
Professional Controversy Emergence -- Ruling generates considerable discussion as inconsistent with prevailing practice
Had the Board not read the language so literally, the controversy would not have arisen
Board's literal reading of 'direction' and 'control' in Section II.2.b.
Inconsistency with prevailing professional practices
Requirement that engineer perform all tasks to ethically seal
A ruling imposing an impossible standard inconsistent with customary practice generating community discussion
Professional Controversy Emergence → Precedent Clarification Ruling
Professional Controversy Emergence -- Community discussion reveals 86-2 ruling conflicts with prevailing practice
Precedent Clarification Ruling -- Board modifies 86-2 conclusion to permit sealing of reviewed but not personally prepared plans
Without the controversy revealing the conflict with practice, the Board would not have moved to clarify the precedent
Board's recognition that the Code must not impose an impossible standard
Board's view that the Code is not a static document
Controversy that the 86-2 ruling conflicted with prevailing practice
Recognition of impossible standard plus the need to maintain Code credibility leading to modification
Precedent Clarification Ruling → Precedent Moderation Outcome
Precedent Clarification Ruling -- Board modifies its 86-2 conclusion
Precedent Moderation Outcome -- Strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard is moderated to a review-based standard
Without the clarification ruling, the strict personal-preparation standard would have remained in force
Board's decision to modify the 86-2 conclusion
New standard requiring detailed review rather than personal preparation
Issuance of the modified ruling replacing the strict personal-preparation requirement
Provides the normative framework governing when a professional engineer may sign and seal documents, including requirements related to responsible charge and supervision of others' work.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Code'
Engineer B's delegated sealing practice transitioned from a state of ethical ambiguity to a state of compliance with the governing professional standard.
With the issuance of the moderated ruling, Engineer B's delegated CADD-based sealing practice, previously in tension with the strict 86-2 standard, became formally consistent with the revised ethical standard.
Engineer A Responsible Charge CADD Sealing
CADD-produced engineering documents personally prepared by Engineer A
When an engineer personally prepares documents using CADD, the responsible charge requirement is met because the engineer's own judgment directly produced the work product. The CADD system is a tool of preparation, not a substitute for professional judgment.
No tension arises in this scenario because personal preparation satisfies responsible charge without ambiguity.
Via class 'Responsible Charge Integrity Principle': The existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Integrity Principle' directly captures the concept of an engineer of record exercising genuine, substantive oversight of all work performed under their seal. The case presents exactly this scenario: Engineer A seals work they personally prepared, and Engineer B seals work produced by others under their direction and control. Both scenarios are canonical instantiations of responsible charge, which is precisely what the existing class defines.
Engineer A Technology Non-Substitution CADD Use
CADD system used in document preparation
Personal preparation using CADD is the paradigm case of appropriate technology use: the engineer's judgment drives the work and the tool executes it, satisfying the prohibition on technology substitution.
Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
No tension arises because the engineer remains the intellectual author of the work.
Via class 'Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle': The existing ontology class 'Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle' directly addresses the prohibition on using technological tools as a substitute for independent engineering judgment. The CADD context in this case is a canonical instance of that principle: the question is whether the engineer's use of CADD, or supervision of others using CADD, constitutes genuine professional judgment or mere technological reliance. The existing class covers this concept fully.
BER Code Prevailing Practice Conformance
The Board modified its prior opinion in BER Case 86-2, which had been criticized as inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices in engineering, to reflect that detailed review rather than personal preparation is the appropriate standard for sealing documents prepared by others.
Code Prevailing Practice Conformance Obligation
The Board of Ethical Review was obligated to ensure that its interpretation of the code of ethics reflected generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession, and to modify prior opinions that imposed impossible or idealistic standards inconsistent with actual practice, as it did by clarifying BER Case 86-2.
At the time of issuing the clarifying opinion and on an ongoing basis as professional practices evolve
Technology Adoption Decision → Standard Conflict Identified
It is critical for engineers to fully understand the role that new technologies such as CADD will play in the performance of professional services.
Technology Adoption Decision -- Engineers transition to CADD for design and drafting
Personal Document Sealing -- Engineer A seals CADD documents he personally prepared
Standard Conflict Identified -- Simultaneous personal and delegated CADD sealing raises ethical questions under the Code
Without adoption of CADD systems for delegated work, no conflict over sealing CADD-produced documents would have surfaced
Adoption of CADD systems by engineers and firms
CADD producing results from the efforts of others
Existing Code requirement of direction and control
CADD adoption combined with delegated production raising the question of ethical sealing
The governing ethical standard for sealing engineering documents changed from requiring personal preparation or thorough checking to requiring detailed review and responsible charge, legitimizing supervised delegation.
Following the Precedent Clarification Ruling in the current case, the strict 86-2 personal-preparation standard was superseded by a moderated standard requiring detailed review and responsible charge rather than personal preparation.
CADD Use Technology Substitution Prohibition
CADD system outputs incorporated into sealed engineering documents
The Board warns that CADD, when used beyond its capacity as a tool, becomes a substitute for professional judgment, creating liability and ethical risk.
The prohibition is absolute with respect to substitution; the engineer must understand and verify all tool outputs before sealing.
CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement.
the engineer must utilize such systems to assist the engineer in the performance of professional services and not employ such systems as a replacement for professional competence and expertise.
there may be a temptation for the engineer to incorporate a solution provided by the system which the engineer has neither prepared nor fully understands
Via class 'Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle': Direct match to the existing Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle in the ontology, which addresses the prohibition on using technological tools as substitutes for independent engineering judgment.
Engineer A CADD Substitution Prohibition
BER case addressing the ethical limits of CADD use, with the Board warning that CADD used beyond its proper role as a tool has a propensity to become a crutch or substitute for judgment.
Engineer A was prohibited from incorporating CADD-generated solutions that Engineer A had neither prepared nor fully understood, and was required to treat the CADD system as a production tool under personal professional direction rather than as a substitute for engineering judgment.
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals documents he personally prepared using a CADD system. The constraint requires that his seal reflect genuine responsible charge over the preparation of those documents.
Engineer A may sign and seal CADD-produced documents only when he has personally prepared those documents, exercising genuine authorship and professional direction throughout their preparation, not merely reviewed a completed product.
At the time of signing and sealing any CADD-produced document
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Seal Constraint'
Engineer A Technology Non-Substitution CADD Personal
Engineer A personally prepares documents using a CADD system and then signs and seals them. The constraint prohibits treating the CADD system as a replacement for independent engineering judgment.
Engineer A must use the CADD system as a production tool under his own professional direction and judgment, and may not allow the system's outputs to substitute for his independent engineering analysis, design decisions, or professional authorship of the documents he seals.
Throughout preparation and sealing of CADD-produced documents
BER case clarifying that general supervision without detailed review is insufficient for responsible charge, and that an engineer may seal subordinate-prepared documents only when genuine direction, control, and detailed review have been exercised.
Engineer B was constrained to affix a professional seal only to documents prepared by subordinates using CADD over which Engineer B had exercised genuine responsible charge, meaning substantive direction and control throughout preparation combined with detailed review before sealing, not merely general supervision.
At the time of sealing any document prepared by subordinates
The engineering community entered a state of interpretive conflict, with the official ethical standard misaligned from widespread professional conduct.
The 1986 BER Case 86-2 strict sealing ruling generated significant controversy within the engineering community because it conflicted with prevailing professional practices around delegated and supervised work.
The BER recognized an active inconsistency between its prior ruling and documented professional practice, placing the adequacy of the 86-2 standard in question.
In the current case, the simultaneous practice of Engineer A sealing personally and Engineer B sealing through supervised subordinates made visible the unresolved tension between the 86-2 ruling and actual professional conduct, prompting the BER to revisit the earlier standard.
The mode of engineering document production shifted from manual to computer-assisted methods, altering the practical relationship between the sealing engineer and the physical act of preparation.
Engineering design practice evolved historically from manual drafting through CAD and then CADD systems, with AI anticipated as the next stage, progressively distancing the registered engineer from direct document production.
CADD system used by subordinates under Engineer B's direction
Efficiency pressures in document production
Engineer B ensures that the CADD system used by subordinates serves as a production tool under professional direction rather than as a substitute for engineering judgment, by maintaining substantive direction and control over the work produced.
Substantive direction and control ensure that technology assists rather than replaces professional judgment even when the engineer does not personally operate the CADD system.
Engineer B oversees subordinates using a CADD system to produce engineering documents and seals the results, with the obligation to ensure the technology serves the engineering process rather than replacing professional oversight.
Technology Tool Non-Substitution Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the CADD system used by subordinates served as a production tool under professional direction rather than as a substitute for Engineer B's supervisory judgment and technical oversight, so that the seal reflected genuine professional responsibility.
Throughout the preparation of the documents and prior to sealing
Engineer CADD Competence Assurance Sealing
Both Engineer A and Engineer B use or oversee use of a CADD system and seal the resulting documents. The constraint requires that each engineer possess the competence necessary to evaluate and take responsible charge of CADD-produced outputs before sealing them.
Any engineer who signs and seals documents prepared using a CADD system must possess sufficient understanding of the system's capabilities and limitations to exercise genuine responsible charge over the resulting work product, and must not seal documents produced by a system the engineer cannot adequately evaluate.
NSPE Code of Ethics; CADD Competency Guidance Resource; NSPE BER Case 86-2
Prior to and at the time of signing and sealing any CADD-produced document
Throughout any project phase in which CADD systems are used to generate design solutions or documents
Transforms the general competence principle into a specific obligation to understand the tools being used and to maintain independent judgment when those tools generate design solutions.
Any engineer using CADD systems to prepare engineering documents for signing and sealing
Engineer demonstrates proficiency and exercises independent judgment over all CADD-generated output
The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology
Engineer begins using CADD systems to prepare or assist in preparing engineering plans and documents
Engineer B Responsible Charge Seal Delegated CADD
Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals documents produced by others using a CADD system working under Engineer B's direction and control. The constraint requires that the direction and control be substantive and continuous, not nominal.
Engineer B may sign and seal CADD-produced documents prepared by subordinates only when Engineer B has exercised genuine direction and control over those subordinates throughout the preparation process, not merely reviewed the completed documents after the fact.
NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER Case 86-2; NSPE Code Section II.2.b
At the time of signing and sealing any CADD-produced document prepared by subordinates
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system, with the risk that reliance on the system could substitute for genuine supervisory oversight.
Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the CADD system used by subordinates served as a production tool under professional direction rather than as a substitute for Engineer B's own professional judgment and oversight, so that the seal reflected genuine intellectual and technical responsibility.
Throughout the direction, review, and sealing of CADD-generated documents produced by subordinates
Via class 'Technology Non-Substitution Obligation': This obligation is substantively identical to the Technology Tool Non-Substitution Obligation already extracted from prior sections of this case. The concept is the same: engineers must not allow CADD or similar tools to substitute for professional judgment. Matched at high confidence as the same class.
During preparation and at the time of signing and sealing the documents
Clients or public relying on sealed documents
Transforms the general duty of responsible charge into specific obligations regarding oversight of technology-assisted document preparation, whether the engineer is the direct author or the supervising professional.
CADD-Assisted Document Preparation State
Engineer A's preparation and sealing of documents using a CADD system
Engineer A personally uses a CADD system to prepare engineering documents
Engineer A Technology Non-Substitution CADD
Engineer A personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system and seals them, with the CADD system serving as a drafting instrument rather than an autonomous generator of engineering content.
Engineer A was obligated to use the CADD system as a production tool under his own professional direction, retaining personal authorship and judgment throughout, so that the CADD system did not substitute for his professional competence or intellectual responsibility.
Throughout the preparation of the documents
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system, serving as chief engineer within a large engineering firm.
Engineer B was obligated to possess sufficient background, education, and training to be proficient with the CADD system used by subordinates working under Engineer B's direction and control, so that Engineer B could meaningfully direct, review, and take responsibility for the CADD-generated documents before sealing them.
Before and during the direction, review, and sealing of CADD-generated documents produced by subordinates
Via class 'CADD Proficiency Competence Obligation': This is a specialization of the general Competence Obligation, narrowed to the specific context of CADD and computer-assisted design tool proficiency. The existing Competence Obligation covers the general duty to practice only within areas of competence, and this obligation applies that duty to the specific technological context of CADD systems and their limitations.
Coextensive with the period of document preparation and sealing by Engineer B
Transforms the sealing and responsible charge principle into a concrete obligation to perform detailed review, distinguishing between the impermissible practice of sealing without review and the permissible practice of sealing after sufficient direction, control, and review even without personal preparation.
The potential gap between Engineer B's nominal claim of direction and control and the substantive oversight required for responsible charge when sealing delegated CADD work
Determination that Engineer B exercised genuine responsible charge, or finding of a deficiency
Engineer B seals documents prepared by others, raising the question of whether direction and control was substantive or nominal
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Deficit State'
Engineer A personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system and then signs and seals those documents as the registered professional engineer who produced them.
cadd_involvement: Self-prepared documents using CADD system
Via class 'CADD Document Sealing Engineer': Responsible Charge Engineer in the ontology captures the obligation of active engagement and personal accountability over work product, which is the core obligation at issue when an engineer seals CADD-produced documents. However, the CADD-specific context and the distinction between self-prepared versus directed-others work adds a specialization not fully expressed by the existing class, so a new class is warranted while acknowledging the parent relationship.
Engineer A Full Responsibility Assumption CADD
Engineer A personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system and then signs and seals those documents, with the risk that system-generated solutions may be incorporated without full understanding.
Full Responsibility Assumption Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to assume full professional responsibility for the work product personally prepared using the CADD system, including accountability for any CADD-generated content incorporated into the documents, and could not disclaim responsibility by attributing deficiencies to the system.
Upon sealing CADD-generated documents and continuing thereafter
Via class 'Full Responsibility Assumption Obligation': The existing Responsible Charge Verification Obligation covers the duty to conduct comprehensive verification before sealing. The present obligation emphasizes the assumption of full professional responsibility as a condition of sealing, which is a related but distinct emphasis on accountability rather than verification process. Matched as a variant at medium confidence.
Responsible Charge Verification Obligation
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system, bearing professional accountability for the work product of those subordinates.
cadd_involvement: Documents prepared by others under direction and control
supervisory_relationship: Direction and control over CADD operators or subordinate engineers
From the point at which subordinates begin preparing documents through the act of signing and sealing
Transforms the principle of professional accountability into a concrete obligation to demonstrate active oversight when sealing documents prepared by others, distinguishing legitimate delegation from improper rubber-stamping.
Engineer B's act of sealing documents prepared by subordinates under claimed direction and control
Documents are signed, sealed, and delivered
Engineer B assigns document preparation to others and assumes responsibility for sealing the results
During the period when subordinates prepare documents under Engineer B's direction and through the act of signing and sealing
Engineer B's direction and control over others using a CADD system, and subsequent sealing of resulting documents
Engineer B directs others who use a CADD system to prepare engineering documents
Engineer B Responsible Charge Supervisory Sealing
CADD-produced engineering documents prepared by subordinates under Engineer B's direction and control
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system, satisfying the responsible charge requirement through substantive supervisory oversight rather than personal preparation.
The responsible charge standard is met when direction and control are genuine and substantive, resolving the tension between supervisory sealing and personal accountability.
Engineer CADD Responsible Charge Deficit
During any project phase in which the engineer accepts CADD-generated solutions without independent verification or understanding
Engineer who relies on CADD system output without sufficient understanding or detailed review, effectively substituting system output for professional judgment
Engineer performs detailed review and achieves genuine understanding of the CADD-generated solution, or declines to use the solution
CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement
Engineer incorporates CADD-generated solution that the engineer has not prepared and does not fully understand
CADD Engineer Competence Verification Requirement
CADD system use in preparation of sealed engineering documents
Competence in the tool is a precondition of responsible charge; the two principles are complementary rather than in tension.
Via class 'AI Verification Competence Principle': Direct match to the existing AI Verification Competence Principle in the ontology, which addresses the requirement that engineers using AI or automated tools possess sufficient understanding to evaluate and verify outputs before incorporating them into professional work products.
Engineer A personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system and then signs and seals those documents as the registered professional engineer of record.
Engineer A was obligated to check and review in some detail the engineering documents personally prepared using the CADD system before affixing the seal, ensuring the seal reflected genuine professional oversight of the content.
Before affixing the professional seal to CADD-generated documents
Via class 'Detailed Review Sealing Obligation': This obligation is a close match to the existing Responsible Charge Seal Obligation, which requires a licensed engineer to apply their seal only to work products they have personally reviewed with sufficient depth and competence. The present obligation adds the clarification that personal preparation is not required but detailed review is, which is a refinement of the same core duty rather than a distinct new concept.
Engineer CADD Document Sealing Review Adequacy
From the point at which CADD-prepared documents are submitted for sealing through completion of the engineer's detailed review
Subordinates or CADD operators who prepared documents
Responsible Charge Review Adequacy State
Engineer who signs and seals CADD-prepared documents not personally drafted by the engineer
Engineer completes sufficiently detailed check and review and assumes full responsibility, or declines to seal
The key requirement is that an engineer possesses sufficient competence, assumes full responsibility for the work product and carefully directs, controls and reviews the material prepared under the engineer's responsible charge
it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail
Engineer is presented with CADD-prepared documents for signature and seal
Potential liability if CADD system limitations were not fully understood or accounted for in the work
Certify documents he personally produced as meeting professional standards, fulfilling the legal and ethical requirement of responsible charge
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents that he personally prepared, taking direct ownership of the work product.
Risk that review depth may be insufficient to catch errors introduced by subordinates or by CADD system outputs not fully understood
Certify documents produced by supervised subordinates as meeting professional standards, consistent with large-firm practice
Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals CADD-produced documents prepared by others working under his direction and control, without personally drafting the documents himself.
Before and during the preparation and sealing of CADD-generated documents
Engineer B Detailed Review Sealing Subordinate Work
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system. The prior BER Case 86-2 scenario involved a chief engineer who believed general supervision without detailed review was sufficient.
Engineer B was obligated to check and review in some detail the engineering documents prepared by subordinates using the CADD system before affixing the seal, and could not ethically seal documents that had not been reviewed in some detail even if Engineer B had general confidence in the subordinates' abilities.
Before affixing the professional seal to documents prepared by subordinates
Engineer B Supervisory Direction Control CADD
Engineer B oversees a team of subordinates producing engineering documents using a CADD system and seals the resulting work as the engineer of record.
Supervisory Direction Control Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to exercise genuine direction and control over the subordinates using the CADD system, including setting technical requirements, reviewing outputs, and verifying conformance with professional standards before sealing the resulting documents.
Via class 'Supervisory Direction Control Obligation': The existing Responsible Charge Verification Obligation captures the duty to conduct comprehensive, experience-based verification of all work products before sealing, including active involvement in design and development. The supervisory direction and control concept is a close variant of that obligation applied to the context of subordinate-produced CADD documents, warranting a medium-confidence match to the parent class.
Board interpretation of responsible charge and sealing requirements
The Board modified its prior opinion in BER Case 86-2 to reflect actual prevailing practices in engineering, recognizing that requiring personal preparation of all sealed documents would impose an impossible standard inconsistent with the code's purpose.
The Board balanced code stability against practical enforceability by clarifying rather than reversing the prior opinion, preserving the core accountability requirement while accommodating organizational realities.
we think the Board's conclusion in BER Case 86-2 should be modified to reflect actual practices which exist within engineering and not impose a impossible standard upon practice.
Engineer A Professional Accountability CADD Documents
Sealed engineering documents prepared by Engineer A using CADD
The act of signing and sealing is an affirmative acceptance of professional responsibility. Because Engineer A personally prepared the documents, the accountability is direct and unmediated.
No competing obligation arises; personal preparation and sealing align accountability with authorship.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Accountability'
Engineer B Professional Accountability Supervisory Seal
Sealed engineering documents produced by subordinates under Engineer B's direction and control
By signing and sealing documents produced by others under his direction and control, Engineer B publicly accepts full professional accountability for those documents, including accountability for the adequacy of his supervision of the CADD work.
Accountability attaches to the seal regardless of who physically produced the documents, provided direction and control were exercised.
Engineer B Responsible Charge Subordinate Work
CADD-produced engineering documents prepared by subordinates and sealed by Engineer B
Engineer B seals documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction, satisfying responsible charge only if Engineer B has checked and reviewed those documents in some detail rather than relying solely on confidence in subordinates.
The Board clarified that detailed review, not personal preparation, is the operative standard, resolving the tension between organizational practicality and accountability.
Via class 'Responsible Charge Integrity Principle': Direct match to the existing Responsible Charge Integrity Principle in the ontology, which addresses genuine substantive oversight of all work performed under the engineer's seal.
Ruling may conflict with prevailing large-firm practice and impose an impossible standard on practitioners
Board of Ethical Review (BER), BER Case 86-2
Strict Personal Preparation Standard Held
Enforce rigorous personal accountability for sealed documents and protect the public from inadequately reviewed engineering work
Understanding of engineering practice norms
In BER Case 86-2, the Board ruled it unethical for a chief engineer to seal plans not personally prepared or thoroughly checked in detail, applying a strict literal interpretation of the terms direction and control.
Engineer A was obligated to sign and seal only those CADD-produced documents that he personally prepared, ensuring that his seal reflected genuine authorship and professional responsibility for the technical content.
At the time of signing and sealing each document
Via class 'Responsible Charge Seal Obligation': The existing Responsible Charge Seal Obligation directly captures the duty of a licensed engineer to seal only work they have personally prepared or genuinely supervised, which is precisely the obligation instantiated by both Engineer A and Engineer B in this case.
Engineer B Full Responsibility Assumption Sealing
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system, bearing professional responsibility for the content of those documents.
Engineer B was obligated to assume full professional responsibility for the work product prepared by subordinates under Engineer B's responsible charge as a condition of sealing those documents, and could not disclaim responsibility by attributing deficiencies to subordinates or to the CADD system.
Upon sealing documents prepared by subordinates and continuing thereafter
In either case, we are not of the view that an engineer must personally prepare the drawings, plans and other documents involved.
Engineer B signs and seals engineering documents produced by others working under Engineer B's direction and control using a CADD system, serving as the registered professional engineer of record for that work.
Engineer B was obligated to sign and seal CADD-produced documents prepared by subordinates only when Engineer B had exercised genuine direction and control over the work, ensuring that the seal reflected real professional oversight and responsibility.
At the time of signing and sealing each document, contingent on having exercised direction and control throughout preparation
Risk that a relaxed standard may be interpreted permissively, reducing the rigor of review engineers actually perform before sealing documents
Board of Ethical Review (BER), Current Case
Strict Personal Preparation Standard Terminated
Align the ethical standard with generally prevailing professional practice, maintain Code credibility, and establish a reasonable and rational benchmark for responsible charge
Balancing idealistic and realistic professional standards
Understanding of large-firm engineering practice
The Board modifies its conclusion from BER Case 86-2, ruling that an engineer may ethically seal plans not personally prepared, provided the engineer checks and reviews those plans in some detail, directs and controls the work, and assumes full responsibility for the work product.
Potential liability from over-reliance on system outputs not fully understood by the engineer
Risk that CADD becomes a crutch replacing professional judgment
Improve efficiency and accuracy of design and drafting through technological advancement
Engineering judgment independent of system outputs
Engineers and firms across the profession transition from manual drafting to CAD and then to CADD, incorporating computer-assisted tools into standard professional practice.