ProEthica Case 121 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-06-05T09:54:09.491336
title: Use Of CD-ROM For Highway Design
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case 71-2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to establish that engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess the necessary educational background and experience, or to retain specialists who do.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Case 78-5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to reinforce the principle that engineers must not misrepresent their qualifications to secure contracts, and to affirm the obligation to only seek work within their areas of competency.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Case 121 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 3
event count: 5
total elements: 8
synthesis literal: hasTimepoints
synthesis literal: temporalConsistency
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Case 94-8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to illustrate that it is unethical for an engineer to perform work outside their area of competency, and that other engineers have a responsibility to question and report such incompetence.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CausalLink_Competency Shortcut Purchase
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Competency Shortcut Purchase
comment: By purchasing a CD-ROM as a substitute for genuine credentialing, Engineer A misrepresents the basis of qualification to prospective clients and to the public, and this misrepresentation matters because it is the direct cause of the CD-ROM delivery that enables the subsequent unauthorized service offering, meaning the dishonesty is not merely symbolic but structurally enables concrete public safety risk.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CausalLink_Promotional Material Acceptanc
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Although accepting the solicitation does not itself fulfill or violate any obligation, it initiates the causal chain that leads directly to the competency shortcut purchase, making it normatively significant as the moment where professional judgment and public safety considerations first apply and where a more careful response could have interrupted all downstream harms.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CausalLink_Unauthorized Service Offering
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Unauthorized Service Offering
comment: Offering services without genuine competency violates multiple obligations simultaneously, and this convergence is causally critical because the action produces both an inadequate competency basis for any work performed and an ethical precedent that normalizes bypassing rigorous credentialing, compounding harm to public health and safety beyond any single engagement.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Engineer A to offer facilities design and construction services under the facts presented.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 b
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's offer of facilities design and construction services was unethical, Engineer A's conduct reveals a compounded ethical failure: not merely practicing outside competence, but actively misrepresenting professional qualifications to the public by publicly offering services in a domain where no relevant education or experience existed. The solicitation itself did not confer competence, and Engineer A's failure to critically evaluate its claims before acting on them represents an independent violation of professional judgment. A competent engineer is expected to possess the self-awareness to distinguish between a commercially motivated marketing pitch and a legitimate pathway to professional qualification. By treating the CD-ROM as a credential-equivalent, Engineer A effectively engaged in a form of self-certification that the NSPE Code does not recognize and that directly undermines public trust in the engineering profession.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted unethically should be understood as applying at multiple sequential points in the chain of conduct, not solely at the moment of offering services. While the most visible ethical breach occurs when Engineer A begins offering facilities design and construction services, an earlier failure of professional judgment occurs when Engineer A accepts the solicitation's premise — that unfamiliar engineering disciplines can be mastered through a commercial software tool — without critical evaluation. The obligation to practice only within areas of competence under Code Section II.2.a is not merely a constraint on service delivery; it imposes an affirmative duty of competence self-assessment that precedes any client engagement. Engineer A's failure to exercise that self-assessment at the solicitation-receipt and CD-ROM-ordering stages means the ethical violation is not a single discrete act but a sequence of progressively deepening departures from professional obligation. This temporal analysis is important because it clarifies that the Code's competence requirements are prospective and preventive, not merely reactive.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 c
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
cited provision4: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion leaves unaddressed a potentially mitigating pathway that the NSPE Code itself contemplates: Code Section II.2.c permits an engineer to accept responsibility for coordinating an entire project — including disciplines outside their personal competence — provided that qualified specialists are retained for those technical components. Had Engineer A structured the facilities design engagement by retaining licensed specialists in structural, mechanical, electrical, and other relevant disciplines, and limited their own role to project coordination consistent with their chemical engineering background, the ethical analysis might have differed substantially. However, the facts as presented indicate that Engineer A offered facilities design and construction services relying solely on the CD-ROM tool, with no indication that qualified specialists were retained or that the scope of Engineer A's personal technical contribution was limited to areas of demonstrated competence. This distinction is critical: the Code does not prohibit multi-discipline project coordination by a generalist engineer, but it does prohibit an engineer from personally performing or certifying technical work in disciplines where they lack qualification, regardless of the tools employed. The CD-ROM cannot substitute for the specialist retention that Section II.2.c requires as the condition for accepting such engagements.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: A nuance the Board did not explicitly address is the ironic ethical significance of Engineer A's own prior conduct as a competence reporter. In the same case, Engineer A demonstrated sound professional judgment by raising concerns about Engineer B's out-of-competence footing design work — correctly recognizing that a chemical engineer performing structural footing design without relevant training violated competence norms. Yet Engineer A simultaneously violated those same norms by offering facilities design services based on a commercial CD-ROM. This selective application of competence awareness — rigorous when evaluating a colleague's conduct, absent when evaluating one's own — represents a more serious ethical failure than simple ignorance would. An engineer who understands the competence principle well enough to apply it critically to others, but fails to apply it with equal rigor to their own practice, cannot claim good faith reliance on the CD-ROM's marketing claims as a mitigating factor. The capacity for competence self-assessment was demonstrably present; its non-application to Engineer A's own conduct therefore reflects a failure of professional integrity rather than a mere knowledge gap.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 b
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: From a public welfare perspective, the Board's conclusion is further reinforced by the categorical nature of the risk that Engineer A's conduct created. The NSPE Code's competence requirements are not calibrated to the sophistication of available tools; they are grounded in the recognition that engineering decisions affecting public safety require a foundation of education and experience that enables the practitioner to identify when a tool's output is erroneous, incomplete, or inapplicable to site-specific conditions. A CD-ROM design tool, however feature-rich, cannot supply the judgment needed to recognize its own limitations. An engineer without facilities design experience cannot evaluate whether the tool's outputs are appropriate for a given project, cannot identify when standard design parameters do not apply, and cannot exercise the professional skepticism that competent practice demands. No degree of commercial validation or tool sophistication can bridge this gap, because the gap is not informational but experiential and judgmental. This analysis also forecloses the theoretical argument that a sufficiently robust tool might reduce public welfare risk enough to justify its use by an unqualified engineer: the public welfare principle operates categorically in this context because the very ability to assess tool adequacy is itself a competence-dependent skill.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The commercial solicitation bears no direct ethical responsibility under the NSPE Code, but Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation to critically evaluate any marketing claim before acting on it. The solicitation's explicit language — 'no matter your design experience' — should itself have served as a warning signal rather than an inducement, because it openly advertised the circumvention of the very competence standards the Code imposes. A professionally competent engineer exercising sound judgment would recognize that no commercial product can confer the education and experience required by Code Section II.2.a. Engineer A's failure to critically evaluate the solicitation is therefore itself an ethical lapse, not merely a precursor to one. The obligation of competence self-assessment is continuous and is not suspended by the persuasiveness of a vendor's marketing.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: There is a meaningful moral distinction between an engineer genuinely deceived by a sophisticated tool's marketing claims and one who knowingly offers out-of-competence services, but under the NSPE Code that distinction does not eliminate culpability — it only modulates its character. Code Section II.2.a imposes an objective standard: qualification by education or experience in the specific technical field. That standard is not satisfied by subjective good faith. Engineer A, as a chemical engineer with no facilities design experience, possessed sufficient professional background to recognize that a CD-ROM cannot substitute for years of discipline-specific education and practice. The solicitation's own language made the substitution explicit. Accordingly, any claim of genuine deception is weakened by Engineer A's professional capacity to evaluate the claim critically. The Code treats the resulting competence gap as an objective violation regardless of Engineer A's subjective intent, though intent remains relevant to the severity of professional censure.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Examining the sequence of events, Engineer A's conduct first becomes ethically questionable at the moment of ordering the CD-ROM with the intent to expand service offerings, because that act reflects a decision to treat a commercial product as a competence substitute. However, the conduct becomes definitively ethically impermissible when Engineer A begins to offer facilities design and construction services to the public, because it is at that point that Code Section II.2.a is directly violated through the public representation of qualification in a domain where none exists. The mere receipt of the solicitation imposes no Code violation but does trigger the affirmative obligation of critical evaluation under the broader duty of professional judgment. The ordering of the CD-ROM is an intermediate act that, while not itself a Code violation, evidences a failure of professional judgment that foreshadows the subsequent violation. The Code's obligations thus operate at each stage, but with escalating force: evaluative obligation at receipt, judgment obligation at purchase, and hard competence obligation at the point of service offering.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 c
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.2.c.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer A's conduct could potentially become ethically permissible if the CD-ROM were used only as a supplementary computational or reference tool while qualified specialist engineers retained overall design responsibility for each discipline involved. Code Section II.2.c explicitly permits an engineer to accept 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 by the qualified engineers who prepared it. Under this framework, Engineer A's role would be limited to project coordination — a function within the scope of general engineering competence — while facilities design specialists would bear technical responsibility for their respective segments. The CD-ROM in this scenario would function analogously to any reference library, not as a competence substitute. However, Engineer A's actual conduct — offering facilities design and construction services without any indication of specialist retention — does not satisfy this framework, and the CD-ROM was plainly being used as a competence substitute rather than a supplementary tool.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 c
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.2.c.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A's competence boundary overreach and the specialist retention obligation under Code Section II.2.c reveals a genuine pathway to ethical compliance that Engineer A failed to pursue. An engineer may ethically accept a multi-discipline project as overall coordinator without personally possessing expertise in every sub-discipline, provided that qualified specialists are retained and their work is properly sealed. This means Engineer A's ethical failure was not simply that the project was too broad — it was that Engineer A offered to perform the technical design work personally, relying on a CD-ROM, rather than structuring the engagement as a coordination role with specialist delegation. The two principles are therefore not in irreconcilable conflict; rather, the specialist retention pathway under II.2.c represents the ethically compliant alternative that Engineer A bypassed in favor of a commercially motivated shortcut.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a public welfare perspective, no degree of CD-ROM sophistication or vendor validation can categorically substitute for foundational engineering competence in a way that satisfies the NSPE Code's public welfare mandate. The Code's competence requirements exist precisely because the consequences of engineering failure — structural collapse, hazardous facility conditions, public injury — are not recoverable through after-the-fact correction. A consequentialist analysis confirms this: the probability and magnitude of harm from facilities designed by an engineer with no relevant experience, relying on an unvalidated commercial tool, vastly outweighs any economic benefit to Engineer A's firm. Even if a hypothetical CD-ROM were developed and validated by a recognized professional engineering body, it would reduce but not eliminate the competence gap, because the ability to evaluate tool outputs, recognize edge cases, and exercise professional judgment in novel situations requires experiential knowledge that no software can confer. The public welfare principle therefore operates as a near-categorical constraint on technology substitution for foundational competence.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: Engineer A's primary ethical failure is best characterized as a compound violation in which the professional honesty omission and the commercial inducement resistance failure are both present and mutually reinforcing, but the Code treats the competence boundary violation as the foundational wrong from which the others derive. The dishonesty toward clients and the public — offering services without disclosing the absence of relevant experience — is a serious violation of Code Section II.2.a and the broader duty of honest representation. However, the commercial inducement resistance failure is the causal antecedent: Engineer A's susceptibility to a commercially motivated shortcut is what produced the competence gap that was then misrepresented. The Code does not explicitly rank these violations hierarchically, but the structure of Section II.2 places competence as the threshold requirement, suggesting that the honesty violation is derivative of and secondary to the competence violation. Both are serious, but remediation of the honesty violation alone — through disclosure — would not cure the underlying competence deficiency.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The juxtaposition of Engineer A's ethically sound reporting of Engineer B's out-of-competence footing design with Engineer A's own simultaneous violation of the same competence norms constitutes a more serious ethical failure than simple ignorance would. When an engineer demonstrates awareness of competence boundaries sufficient to identify and report a peer's violation, that engineer cannot credibly claim ignorance of the same norms when they apply to their own conduct. Engineer A's selective competence awareness — recognizing the norm when applied to Engineer B but disregarding it when commercial incentives applied to themselves — suggests either willful disregard or a troubling compartmentalization of professional ethics. This pattern is more culpable than the conduct of an engineer who violated competence norms without ever having demonstrated awareness of them, because it reveals that the violation was not born of ignorance but of motivated reasoning in the face of financial opportunity.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed the categorical duty to practice only within areas of competence. The duty imposed by Code Section II.2.a is not contingent on outcomes, client consent, or the sophistication of available tools — it is an absolute obligation grounded in the nature of professional engineering practice. A CD-ROM, however comprehensive, cannot satisfy this duty because the duty is defined in terms of the engineer's own education and experience, not the capabilities of external instruments. Kant's categorical imperative further illuminates this: if every engineer were permitted to offer services in unfamiliar disciplines upon acquiring a commercial software tool, the institution of professional engineering competence would be rendered meaningless and public trust in the profession would collapse. Engineer A's conduct therefore fails the universalizability test and constitutes a categorical deontological violation independent of any consequentialist assessment of actual harm.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the intellectual humility, professional integrity, and critical judgment that define the character of a competent engineer. A virtuous engineer, upon receiving a solicitation explicitly promising competence without experience, would recognize the claim as implausible and potentially dangerous rather than as a business opportunity. The willingness to accept a commercial vendor's self-serving marketing as sufficient justification to enter an entirely unfamiliar discipline reflects a disposition toward financial opportunism over professional responsibility. Intellectual humility — the recognition of the limits of one's own knowledge — is a foundational engineering virtue precisely because engineering failures have irreversible public consequences. Engineer A's conduct represents not merely a rule violation but a character failure: the substitution of commercial enthusiasm for the careful self-assessment that professional engineering demands.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 c
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.2.c.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: Engineer A's offer of facilities design and construction services would have been ethically permissible under the facts presented only if qualified specialist engineers had been retained for each technical discipline involved and their work properly sealed under Code Section II.2.c. In that scenario, Engineer A's role as project coordinator would fall within the scope of general engineering competence, and the CD-ROM might serve as a legitimate reference tool rather than a competence substitute. However, this counterfactual requires not merely the retention of specialists but a genuine restructuring of Engineer A's role: Engineer A could not personally perform or seal the technical design work. The ethical permissibility of the coordination role is therefore conditional on Engineer A relinquishing the very service offering — personal facilities design — that the CD-ROM was intended to enable. The counterfactual thus confirms that the ethical path was available but required Engineer A to abandon the commercially motivated expansion of personal technical services.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 b
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: Even if Engineer A had fully disclosed the absence of facilities design experience to prospective clients and obtained their informed consent, this disclosure would not have resolved the ethical violation under the NSPE Code. The competence requirement of Code Section II.2.a operates as an objective professional standard that exists independently of client consent, because the Code's primary obligation runs to public welfare — not merely to the immediate client. A client's consent to receive services from an unqualified engineer does not eliminate the risk to third parties, the public, or the integrity of the profession. Furthermore, Code Section II.2.b prohibits affixing signatures to plans dealing with subject matter in which the engineer lacks competence, regardless of client awareness. Disclosure and consent are ethically relevant factors that may reduce the dishonesty dimension of the violation, but they cannot satisfy the foundational competence requirement that the Code imposes as a non-waivable professional obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 c
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: II.2.c
cited provision2: II.2.a
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A Competence Boundary Overreach and Specialist Retention Obligation Multi-Discipline Project was resolved decisively in favor of the competence boundary principle, but not by categorically prohibiting Engineer A from coordinating a multi-discipline project. Rather, the Code's structure under Section II.2.c permits an engineer to accept overall coordination responsibility for a project outside their personal expertise, provided qualified specialists are retained for each technical discipline. Engineer A's ethical failure was not that they sought to expand their firm's service offerings per se, but that they substituted a commercial CD-ROM for the specialist retention that Section II.2.c requires. Had Engineer A used the CD-ROM as an administrative aid while engaging licensed facilities design specialists, the competence boundary principle and the specialist retention obligation could have been reconciled. The case therefore teaches that the competence boundary principle does not operate as an absolute bar to project acceptance, but it does operate as an absolute bar to personal technical execution without qualification — and no commercial tool can bridge that gap.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 b
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.2.a
cited provision2: II.2.b
cited provision3: III.2.b
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Public Welfare Paramountcy Engineering Competence and Engineer A Technology Substitution CD-ROM Design was resolved by treating the public welfare principle as categorically superior and structurally immune to technological workarounds. The case establishes that no commercial tool — however sophisticated or comprehensively marketed — can reduce public welfare risk to an acceptable level when the engineer deploying it lacks the foundational education and experience to evaluate, verify, or override the tool's outputs. This resolution reflects a deeper principle: engineering competence is not merely the ability to produce a design artifact, but the professional capacity to exercise independent judgment about whether that artifact is safe, appropriate, and correct. A CD-ROM can generate output; it cannot supply the judgment needed to validate that output. The public welfare principle therefore does not merely outweigh the convenience of technology substitution — it renders technology substitution categorically impermissible as a competence strategy, regardless of the tool's claimed capabilities or commercial validation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2 a
cites provision: II 2 c
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.2.a
cited provision2: II.2.c
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The simultaneous operation of Engineer A Competence Reporter Footing Concerns and Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities Design reveals a particularly instructive principle interaction: Engineer A demonstrated a sound and accurate understanding of competence norms when applying them to Engineer B's out-of-competence footing work, yet failed to apply those same norms to their own conduct. This asymmetry suggests that the ethical failure in this case is not mere ignorance of the competence principle, but a selective application of it — one that is more ethically serious than simple ignorance because it implies that Engineer A possessed the conceptual tools to recognize the violation and chose not to deploy them self-critically. The case therefore teaches that professional integrity requires symmetric application of competence norms: an engineer who correctly identifies a peer's competence boundary violation is held to a higher standard of self-awareness, not a lower one. Engineer A Commercial Inducement Resistance Failure and Engineer A Professional Honesty Omission are thus compounded by this selective awareness, making the overall ethical failure more culpable than it would have been had Engineer A never encountered a competence boundary question before.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A accept the promotional solicitation offering a CD-ROM as a basis for entering a new engineering discipline?
focus: Engineer A receives a commercial solicitation offering a CD-ROM as a shortcut to competency in a new engineering discipline. At this initial moment, Engineer A must decide whether to engage with the solicitation or reject it based on professional judgment about what constitutes genuine credentialing. The normative record shows Engineer A's solicitation evaluation proficiency is only basic, meaning the risk of misjudging the offer's legitimacy is high. A careful response here could interrupt all downstream harms before they begin.
option1: Engineer A declines the promotional offer, recognizing that a commercial CD-ROM cannot substitute for genuine education, training, and credentialing in a new discipline, and takes no further steps toward offering services in that area.
option2: Engineer A accepts the promotional material and considers purchasing the CD-ROM as a means of expanding into a new service area, treating the commercial product as a credentialing pathway.
option3: Engineer A pauses upon receiving the solicitation and seeks guidance from the relevant state licensing board or professional society about whether such a product could satisfy competency requirements before making any decision.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A purchase the CD-ROM and treat it as a valid credential for offering services in a new engineering discipline?
focus: Having accepted the solicitation, Engineer A now faces the direct purchase decision: whether to buy the CD-ROM and treat it as a sufficient basis for claiming competency in a new engineering discipline. This is the moment of active misrepresentation, where the normative record confirms Engineer A's Self-Certification CD-ROM and Tool Substitution Refusal obligations were both unmet. The purchase directly enables the subsequent unauthorized service offering and constitutes a concrete act of dishonesty about the basis of qualification.
option1: Engineer A declines to purchase the CD-ROM and instead pursues legitimate pathways to competency, such as formal coursework, mentorship under a licensed specialist, or retaining a qualified specialist for any work in the new discipline.
option2: Engineer A purchases the CD-ROM and proceeds to treat completion of its content as sufficient qualification to offer services in the new discipline, without obtaining formal credentials or specialist oversight.
option3: Engineer A purchases the CD-ROM strictly as a supplemental educational resource while simultaneously pursuing formal credentialing, making clear to any prospective clients that the CD-ROM does not constitute a credential.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A offer engineering services in a discipline for which the only claimed qualification is completion of a commercial CD-ROM?
focus: After acquiring the CD-ROM, Engineer A must decide whether to offer engineering services in the new discipline to prospective clients. This decision point represents the convergence of multiple obligation violations simultaneously: practicing outside competency, misrepresenting qualifications, failing to protect public health and safety, and failing to retain qualified specialists. The normative record confirms all four related obligations were unmet. This is the point at which abstract misrepresentation becomes concrete public safety risk.
option1: Engineer A refrains from offering services in the new discipline and informs prospective clients that genuine competency has not yet been established, directing them to appropriately credentialed specialists.
option2: Engineer A proceeds to market and offer engineering services in the new discipline, representing the CD-ROM completion as sufficient qualification to prospective clients and the public.
option3: Engineer A offers services in the new discipline while privately subcontracting the technical work to a qualified specialist, without disclosing to clients that Engineer A personally lacks the claimed competency.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Must Engineer A take affirmative steps to ensure a qualified specialist is retained for the footing design work, beyond merely reporting competency concerns?
focus: In the context of a multi-discipline project, Engineer A becomes aware that Engineer B is performing footing design work outside Engineer B's area of competency. The normative record shows Engineer A's Competence Reporting Footing Concerns obligation was met, indicating Engineer A did report concerns, but the Multi-Discipline Project Specialist Retention obligation was unmet. This decision point concerns whether Engineer A takes the further step of insisting on or facilitating the retention of a qualified specialist rather than simply noting the concern.
option1: Engineer A goes beyond reporting concerns and affirmatively insists that a qualified specialist be retained for the footing design, refusing to allow the project to proceed on that component without proper credentialing, and escalates if necessary.
option2: Engineer A reports the competency concern to the relevant party and then defers to the project decision-makers, taking no further action if the concern is not acted upon.
option3: Engineer A withdraws from the multi-discipline project entirely upon recognizing that Engineer B is performing work outside competency and that the project structure does not support proper specialist retention.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A ordering the CD-ROM before Engineer A offering facilities design and construction services
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
from entity text: Engineer A ordering the CD-ROM
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A offering facilities design and construction services
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A offering facilities design and construc
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B's structural footing design during construction of the industrial facility
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: During the construction of the project, the construction contractor separately retained the services of Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility.
from entity text: Engineer B's structural footing design
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: construction of the industrial facility
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: construction of the industrial facility
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: 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.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.c.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: 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.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

III.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.2.a
type: NSPECodeProvision
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
created by: National Society of Professional Engineers
document title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.2.a
resource class: NSPE Code Provision
text references: See Code Section II.2.a.
used by: Board of Ethical Review
used in context: Cited as the foundational code provision governing the requirement that engineers practice only within their areas of competence
version: Current at time of case
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:19.921322+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'NSPE Code Provision'
matched ontology class: NSPECodeProvision
matched ontology label: NSPE Code Provision
matches existing: true
source text: See Code Section II.2.a.
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Cited as the foundational code provision governing the requirement that engineers practice only within their areas of competence
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:19.921322+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
created by: National Society of Professional Engineers
document title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
resource class: Professional Code
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, begins to offer facilities design and construction services
used by: Board of Ethical Review
used in context: Applied to evaluate whether Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design and construction services without relevant experience violates professional obligations, particularly provisions requiring engineers to practice only within their areas of competence.
version: Current at time of case
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:42:45.862955+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Code'
matched ontology class: ProfessionalCode
matched ontology label: Professional Code
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, begins to offer facilities design and construction services
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Applied to evaluate whether Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design and construction services without relevant experience violates professional obligations, particularly provisions requiring engineers to practice only within their areas of competence.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:42:45.862955+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer A's action of offering facilities design services rested entirely on a CD-ROM acquired through a commercial solicitation rather than on any prior training, experience, or credentialed knowledge in that domain. The gap between the competence boundary obligation and the tool-substitution claim created genuine argumentative contest over whether the offer was ethically permissible, which is precisely the condition under which an ethical question surfaces in Toulmin's model.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A's acceptance of a commercial solicitation and subsequent service offering created a direct collision between the deontological duty encoded in NSPE Code Section II.2.a and the implicit claim of the CD-ROM marketing that tool ownership substitutes for education and experience. The question is not merely whether Engineer A acted unwisely but whether the deontological framework admits any condition under which a commercial tool could satisfy the competence obligation, and the entities Engineer A CD-ROM Self-Certified Competence and Engineer A Diploma Mill Equivalence make clear that the answer is no.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's act of publicly offering facilities design services, grounded in nothing more than a purchased CD-ROM tool and no prior experience, created a gap between what prospective clients could reasonably infer about qualifications and what Engineer A actually possessed. The deontological framing sharpens the question by asking whether that gap, produced by omission rather than false statement, satisfies the conditions for a categorical honesty violation under duties that treat misleading silence as equivalent to active misrepresentation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design services rested entirely on a commercial CD-ROM rather than on education or experience, creating a direct collision between the consequentialist obligation to prevent foreseeable public harm and the economic rationale that motivated the service expansion. The question could not be resolved by inspecting the action alone because the magnitude of harm depends on contested assumptions about what a CD-ROM tool can and cannot substitute for in professional engineering judgment.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because virtue ethics demands that professional integrity and intellectual humility operate as internal character dispositions, not merely as rule-following behaviors, so the question is not only whether Engineer A violated a code provision but whether the decision to accept a commercial solicitation as sufficient justification reveals a deficiency in the character traits a competent engineer is expected to embody. The tension between the Competence Boundary Principle and the Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle, both triggered by the same sequence of data events, forces an evaluation of whether Engineer A's conduct reflected the virtues of honest self-assessment and appropriate epistemic caution or instead reflected a willingness to subordinate professional judgment to commercial opportunity.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the original ethical violation involved two separable problems: Engineer A offered services outside personal competence, and Engineer A substituted a commercial CD-ROM for genuine specialist knowledge. The NSPE Code provides a recognized pathway for engineers to offer multi-discipline services by retaining qualified specialists, which raises the genuine question of whether following that pathway would have made the offer ethical, or whether the act of offering facilities design services was itself improper for a chemical engineer regardless of how the work would later be staffed.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the case record focuses on Engineer A's downstream conduct, specifically the offering of services and the use of the CD-ROM on a project, but leaves unexamined whether the upstream decision to respond to the solicitation was itself an ethical failure requiring professional judgment. The question surfaces a gap in the argument structure: the data of solicitation receipt and purchase could support a warrant about commercial inducement resistance that the original analysis did not fully develop, creating a contested claim about where exactly Engineer A's professional obligation was first breached.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the original ethical analysis condemned the CD-ROM partly on the grounds that it was a commercial product with no independent validation, which implicitly left open whether professional-body validation would change the conclusion. The gap between the source-based critique and the deeper competence-gap critique created a genuine structural ambiguity in the argument that demanded explicit resolution.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's conduct implicated two distinct ethical structures at once. The disclosure path addresses the honesty and misrepresentation obligation, but the competence boundary obligation under NSPE Code Section II.2.a is grounded in public welfare paramountcy, which means the rebuttal condition of client consent may simply not be available to defeat it.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the sequence of Solicitation Receipt followed by Competency Shortcut Purchase and Unauthorized Service Offering created a causal chain in which an external commercial actor appeared to play a triggering role in Engineer A's ethical failure. The question forces analysis of whether the Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle places an affirmative critical evaluation duty on engineers, or whether it merely prohibits acting on inducements, because the answer determines how moral responsibility is distributed between the soliciting vendor and the engineer who accepted the invitation to overreach.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the data record contains two meaningfully different causal paths to the same prohibited act: one in which the engineer knowingly exploits a marketing shortcut, and one in which the engineer is genuinely misled by vendor claims about what the tool confers. The NSPE Code's competence obligation is written in objective terms, but ordinary moral reasoning treats deception-induced error as culpability-reducing, and that gap between the code's structure and common moral intuition is precisely what forced the question into view.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the factual sequence contains three discrete acts, each with a plausible claim to being the first ethical breach, and the Code does not explicitly rank or sequence the obligations that attach to solicitation, purchase, and offering. The absence of a clear temporal trigger in the warrant structure forces the question of whether the Code imposes a continuous duty of resistance from first contact or only a terminal duty at the point of public misrepresentation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the data shows Engineer A using a commercial CD-ROM as a functional substitute for facilities design education and experience, which simultaneously activates the tool substitution prohibition and the specialist retention obligation. The question surfaces the unresolved boundary between legitimate tool-assisted practice under qualified supervision and impermissible self-certification through technology, a boundary that Code Section II.2.c governs but does not resolve automatically when a supplementary framing is introduced.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's acceptance of a facilities design project created a factual record of out-of-competence service offering, but the NSPE Code contains two structurally competing provisions: one prohibiting engineers from practicing beyond their competence, and one authorizing coordinators to satisfy competence requirements through specialist retention. The question is not merely about what Engineer A did, but about which warrant governs the coordinator role itself, and whether holding that role without personal facilities design expertise constitutes a competence violation or a permissible structural arrangement.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the data shows Engineer A relying on a commercially marketed tool as the entire basis for entering a new practice domain, which forces a collision between two expressions of the same underlying value. Both the technology substitution prohibition and the public welfare paramountcy principle claim to protect the public, but they reach opposite conclusions about whether tool quality could ever close the competence gap, and that internal tension within a shared value is precisely what generates the question.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A's conduct involved two analytically distinct wrongs: a representational wrong in offering services without disclosing incompetence, and a judgment wrong in treating a commercial CD-ROM as a legitimate path to competence. The NSPE Code provision at NSPE Code Section II.2.a governs both, but the case record does not specify whether the Code treats misrepresentation of qualifications as a more serious violation than susceptibility to commercial inducement, leaving open whether these are parallel failures or whether one is the root cause from which the other follows.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because Engineer A occupied two ethically contradictory roles at the same time, functioning as both a competence enforcer toward Engineer B and a competence violator in the facilities design offering. The structural tension is not merely about hypocrisy but about whether selective competence awareness, where an engineer can identify incompetence in others while failing to apply the same standard to themselves, constitutes a more culpable failure than simple ignorance, because it implies the engineer possessed the normative knowledge required to self-regulate and chose not to apply it.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to offer facilities design and construction services under the facts presented?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the commercial solicitation itself bear any ethical responsibility for inducing engineers to overreach their competence boundaries, and should engineers have an affirmative obligation to critically evaluate marketing claims before acting on them?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Is there an ethical distinction between an engineer who offers out-of-competence services knowingly and one who is genuinely deceived by a commercial tool's marketing claims into believing competence has been acquired, and does that distinction affect culpability under the NSPE Code?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what point in the sequence of events — receiving the solicitation, ordering the CD-ROM, or actively offering services — does Engineer A's conduct first become ethically impermissible, and does the Code impose obligations at each stage?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Would Engineer A's conduct become ethically permissible if the CD-ROM were used only as a supplementary tool while a qualified specialist retained overall design responsibility, and how does Code Section II.2.c govern that scenario?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Competence Boundary Overreach conflict with the principle of Specialist Retention Obligation Multi-Discipline Project — that is, could Engineer A ethically accept a facilities design project as overall coordinator under II.2.c while delegating technical design to qualified specialists, thereby satisfying competence requirements without personally possessing facilities design expertise?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Technology Substitution Violation conflict with the principle of Public Welfare Paramountcy Engineering Competence in a nuanced way — specifically, could a sufficiently robust and validated CD-ROM tool ever reduce public welfare risk enough to justify its use by an otherwise unqualified engineer, or does the public welfare principle categorically prohibit technology from substituting for foundational competence?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Professional Honesty Omission conflict with the principle of Engineer A Commercial Inducement Resistance Failure — that is, is Engineer A's primary ethical failure one of dishonesty toward clients and the public about the absence of competence, or is it a failure of professional judgment in succumbing to a commercially motivated shortcut, and does the Code treat these as equally serious or hierarchically ordered violations?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Competence Reporter Footing Concerns conflict with the principle of Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities Design — in that Engineer A demonstrated sound ethical judgment by reporting Engineer B's out-of-competence footing work, yet simultaneously violated the same competence norms by offering facilities design services, raising the question of whether selective competence awareness constitutes a more serious ethical failure than simple ignorance?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty to practice only within areas of competence, given that no amount of commercial tooling can substitute for the education and experience required by professional engineering codes?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a categorical duty of honesty by publicly offering facilities design and construction services without disclosing the absence of any relevant experience, thereby misrepresenting professional qualifications to prospective clients?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the potential for harm to public welfare — arising from facilities designed by an engineer with no relevant experience relying solely on a commercial CD-ROM — outweigh any economic benefit Engineer A might gain by expanding service offerings?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual humility expected of a competent engineer when they accepted a commercially motivated solicitation as sufficient justification to enter an entirely unfamiliar engineering discipline?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's offer of facilities design and construction services have been ethical if, instead of relying solely on the CD-ROM, they had retained qualified specialist engineers for each discipline involved in the project, as permitted under NSPE Code Section II.2.c?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had critically evaluated the CD-ROM solicitation, recognized it as an inducement to practice outside their competence, and declined to order it — would this have demonstrated the professional judgment and commercial solicitation resistance that the NSPE Code implicitly demands?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the CD-ROM had been developed and validated by a recognized professional engineering body rather than a commercial vendor, would that have meaningfully changed the ethical analysis of whether Engineer A could legitimately offer facilities design services — or would the fundamental competence gap remain an insurmountable ethical barrier?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Had Engineer A disclosed their lack of facilities design experience to prospective clients before accepting any engagement, and obtained informed client consent, would this disclosure have resolved the ethical violation — or does the competence requirement under the NSPE Code operate independently of client consent?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A had no facilities design background and offered those services based only on a commercial CD-ROM, the board concluded the offer was unethical because the Code requires qualification by education or experience before undertaking an assignment, and the CD-ROM satisfied neither criterion.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A offered facilities design services without any specialist retention structure and used the CD-ROM as a competence substitute, the board concluded that the II.2.c coordination pathway was unavailable, though it would have been available had the proper specialist-retention framework been in place.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A personally offered to perform facilities design using only a CD-ROM rather than delegating technical work to specialists, the board concluded that the ethical failure was not the breadth of the project but the choice to bypass the specialist retention pathway that II.2.c expressly provides.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A had no facilities design experience and the CD-ROM was a commercial product without professional body validation, the board concluded that no degree of tool sophistication can substitute for the experiential judgment required to protect public welfare, because the ability to recognize tool errors and novel edge cases cannot be conferred by software.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A's susceptibility to the CD-ROM solicitation produced the competence gap that was then misrepresented to prospective clients, the board concluded that the commercial inducement resistance failure is the causal root of the compound violation, making the competence violation foundational and the honesty violation secondary but serious.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A had already shown the capacity to identify and report a peer's competence boundary violation, the board concluded that Engineer A's own simultaneous violation cannot be attributed to ignorance and therefore represents a more serious ethical failure reflecting motivated reasoning in the face of commercial incentive.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A had no qualifying education or experience in facilities design and the Code defines competence in terms of personal knowledge rather than tool access, the board concluded that the duty to practice within competence is categorical under these facts and is not satisfied by client consent, disclosure, or the acquisition of commercial software.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had no facilities design background and relied entirely on a commercial solicitation rather than any independent professional judgment, the board found that the conduct reflected a character failure, specifically the displacement of intellectual humility by financial opportunism, rather than a mere technical rule violation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A sought to personally deliver facilities design services using the CD-ROM rather than engaging qualified specialists and limiting their own role to coordination, the board found the conduct impermissible, while confirming that a properly structured coordination arrangement under Section II.2.c would have been ethically available.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the competence requirement protects parties beyond the immediate client and operates as an objective standard independent of consent, the board concluded that even full disclosure and client agreement could not cure the underlying violation, though such disclosure would have mitigated the honesty dimension of Engineer A's conduct.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the Code itself provides a pathway for coordinating multi-discipline projects through specialist retention, the board found that the competence boundary principle does not bar project acceptance but does bar personal technical execution without qualification, and that no commercial tool can substitute for the specialist retention that makes coordination ethically permissible.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A offered facilities design services to the public without any disclosure of the competence gap and treated a commercial software package as a substitute for recognized qualification, the board concluded this constituted an independent misrepresentation violation layered on top of the base competence violation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A could not independently assess whether the CD-ROM's outputs were safe, appropriate, or correct, the board concluded that using the tool created an irreducible public welfare risk that the public welfare principle categorically prohibits, regardless of the tool's claimed sophistication or commercial validation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A had already demonstrated accurate understanding of competence norms by reporting Engineer B, the board concluded that Engineer A's failure to apply those same norms to their own CD-ROM-based facilities design offering was not a product of ignorance but of selective deployment of a principle they possessed, and that this asymmetry made the combined ethical failures of commercial inducement resistance failure and professional honesty omission more culpable than they would have been in the absence of that prior competence reporting conduct.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A failed to critically assess the solicitation before ordering the CD-ROM and then proceeded to offer services, the board concluded the ethical violation was a sequence of progressively deepening failures beginning at solicitation receipt, not a single discrete act at the moment of offering.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A offered facilities design services with no specialist retention and no scope limitation, the board concluded the II.2.c coordination pathway was not available, though it acknowledged that pathway could have changed the ethical analysis had its conditions been met.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A reported Engineer B's footing design work as an out-of-competence violation while offering their own out-of-competence facilities design services in the same case, the board concluded that selective competence awareness represents a more serious ethical failure than simple ignorance, because the capacity for self-assessment was present and was not applied.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had no facilities design experience, the board concluded that no commercial tool, however sophisticated or validated, could reduce public welfare risk to an acceptable level, since the capacity to assess the tool's adequacy was itself the missing competence.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A was a licensed engineer and the solicitation's language openly advertised bypassing competence requirements, the board concluded that acting on the solicitation without critical evaluation was itself an ethical lapse, not merely a precursor to one.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had the professional background to critically evaluate the solicitation and the solicitation's language was explicit about substituting for experience, the board concluded that any claim of genuine deception was weakened, though intent remained relevant to the character and severity of the resulting censure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A moved through each stage of the sequence, the board concluded that the Code imposed obligations of escalating force at each step, with the definitive violation occurring at the point of public service offering rather than at the earlier stages of receipt or purchase.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/121#Action_Competency_Shortcut_Purchase

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Solicitation Receipt

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Competency Shortcut Purchase

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Unauthorized Service Offering

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Ethical Precedent Application

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Competency Shortcut Purchase

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: CD-ROM Delivery

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Unauthorized Service Offering

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Inadequate Competency Basis

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Causal edge (cause)
type: Derivation
comment: property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: CD-ROM Delivery

Causal edge (effect)
type: Derivation
comment: property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Unauthorized Service Offering

Causal edge (responsibleAgent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/121#Action_Unauthorized_Service_Offering

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/121#Action_Unauthorized_Service_Offering

consulting firm's interview with public utility before firm's attempt to alter its qualifications
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: the firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract
from entity text: consulting firm's interview with public utility
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: firm's attempt to alter its qualifications
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: firm s attempt to alter its qualifications
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:23.419885+00:00
value: The obligation to resist such inducements is heightened when the solicitation explicitly frames competence requirements as obstacles to profit.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:23.420160+00:00
value: The Competence Principle is violated when an engineer offers services in a domain for which the engineer has no substantive background, relying instead on a commercial software tool that the vendor claims eliminates the need for domain experience. Acquiring a tool does not constitute acquiring competence.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:23.419978+00:00
value: The Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle applies not only to AI tools but to any technological tool that an engineer uses as a replacement for, rather than an aid to, independent professional judgment. A design tool cannot supply the foundational competence that the engineer lacks.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:23.419787+00:00
value: The Board explicitly stated that technology must never be a replacement or substitute for engineering judgment. A CD-ROM that generates design outputs cannot supply the foundational knowledge needed to evaluate those outputs critically.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:23.420069+00:00
value: Acquiring a commercial tool and using it to generate design outputs is not equivalent to obtaining professional competence. The Board analogized this conduct to diploma mill self-certification, treating it as a misrepresentation of qualification basis rather than merely a competence gap.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:23.419670+00:00
value: The Competence Principle is violated when an engineer offers services in a domain for which the engineer has no substantive background, relying instead on a commercial software tool that the vendor claims eliminates the need for domain experience. Acquiring a tool does not constitute acquiring competence.

design/build project work by Engineer A overlaps structural footing design by Engineer B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Engineer A, a professional engineer, worked with a construction contractor on a design/build project... During the construction of the project, the construction contractor separately retained the services of Engineer B... to design structural footings
from entity text: design/build project work by Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: structural footing design by Engineer B
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: structural footing design by Engineer B
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Competency Deficit Active; Professional Boundary Condition

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Competency Deficit Active; Professional Boundary Condition

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Self-Certification State; Unqualified Practice Preparation State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Self-Certification State; Unqualified Practice Preparation State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Self-Certification State; Unqualified Practice Preparation State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Self-Certification State; Unqualified Practice Preparation State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk State; Unqualified Practice Active State; Client Reliance on Unqualified Engineer State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk State; Unqualified Practice Active State; Client Reliance on Unqualified Engineer State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk State; Unqualified Practice Active State; Client Reliance on Unqualified Engineer State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Public Safety Risk State; Unqualified Practice Active State; Client Reliance on Unqualified Engineer State

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts; Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts; Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts; Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (raisesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts; Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification; Ethical Obligation to Seek Work Only Within Areas of Competency

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts; Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification; Ethical Obligation to Seek Work Only Within Areas of Competency

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts; Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification; Ethical Obligation to Seek Work Only Within Areas of Competency

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Protection of Public Health and Safety; Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts; Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification; Ethical Obligation to Seek Work Only Within Areas of Competency

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency; Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly; Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety; Obligation to Retain Qualified Specialists When Lacking Competency

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency; Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly; Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety; Obligation to Retain Qualified Specialists When Lacking Competency

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency; Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly; Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety; Obligation to Retain Qualified Specialists When Lacking Competency

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency; Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly; Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety; Obligation to Retain Qualified Specialists When Lacking Competency

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Obligation to Practice Within Competency; Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly; Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety; Obligation to Retain Qualified Specialists When Lacking Competency

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (possessedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (constrainedEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer B

Participant edge (obligatedParty)
type: Derivation
comment: property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B

Participant edge (invokedBy)
type: Derivation
comment: property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A; Engineer B

Actor relationship edge (peer)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=peer; property=professionalPeerOf
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:10.011156+00:00
value: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor

Actor relationship edge (peer)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=peer; property=professionalPeerOf
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:54:10.815888+00:00
value: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A

Resource edge (availableTo)
type: Derivation
comment: property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, working on the same design/build project, recognized that Engineer B lacked the competence to design structural footings and reported those concerns to the contractor

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, began offering facilities design services after acquiring a CD-ROM tool

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, began offering facilities design and construction services after acquiring a CD-ROM design tool

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A used a CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the engineering judgment, education, and experience required to perform facilities design

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A treated the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as sufficient basis to represent himself as competent to perform facilities design and construction services

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounded the competence obligations at issue in the fundamental duty to protect public health and safety

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By offering facilities design and construction services without disclosing to prospective clients that Engineer A had no experience or training in that domain, Engineer A implicitly represented a level of competence that did not exist

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A responded to a direct mail solicitation marketing a CD-ROM as a means to expand practice into facilities design

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A responded to a commercial solicitation that explicitly framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By offering facilities design and construction services without the requisite competence, Engineer A created a risk that members of the public who rely on engineered facilities would be exposed to designs

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In multi-discipline projects such as facilities design and construction, engineers who lack competence in required technical domains are obligated to retain or recommend qualified specialists

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, undertook the design of structural footings for an industrial facility, a task requiring civil and structural engineering competence that Engineer B did not pos

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, began offering facilities design services after acquiring a CD-ROM tool

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, began offering facilities design and construction services after acquiring a CD-ROM design tool

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A used a CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the engineering judgment, education, and experience required to perform facilities design

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A treated a CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the domain knowledge and professional judgment required to practice facilities design and construction engineering

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A treated the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as sufficient basis to represent himself as competent to perform facilities design and construction services

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In multi-discipline projects such as facilities design and construction, engineers who lack competence in required technical domains are obligated to retain or recommend qualified specialists

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By offering facilities design and construction services without disclosing to prospective clients that Engineer A had no experience or training in that domain, Engineer A implicitly represented a level of competence that did not exist

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A responded to a direct mail solicitation marketing a CD-ROM as a means to expand practice into facilities design

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A responded to a commercial solicitation that explicitly framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, working on the same design/build project, recognized that Engineer B lacked the competence to design structural footings and reported those concerns to the contractor, fulfilling the obligation to act when another practitioner's

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, undertook the design of structural footings for an industrial facility

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, was obligated to refrain from offering and performing facilities design and construction services.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, was obligated to refrain from offering facilities design and construction services, regardless of the availability of a CD-ROM design tool.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report concerns about Engineer B's competence to design structural footings to the construction contractor, and did so.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the domain knowledge, education, and professional experience required to competently perform facilities design and construction services.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the CD-ROM design library could not substitute for the domain knowledge and professional experience required to competently practice facilities design and construction

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as a basis for representing competence to perform facilities design and construction services.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, undertaking a multi-discipline facilities design and construction project involving civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering domains outside the engineer's chemical engineering background, was obligated to retai

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to prospective clients that the engineer was qualified to perform facilities design and construction services, and to disclose the absence of relevant experience before soliciting or acc

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to critically evaluate the commercial solicitation, which explicitly framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit, and to refrain from accepting its premise as justification for offering servic

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to critically evaluate and resist the direct mail solicitation that framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit and promised that a CD-ROM could substitute for domain expertise in facilities d

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, was obligated to refrain from designing structural footings for an industrial facility, a domain outside the engineer's competence.

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Prospective clients; Public relying on facilities designed under Engineer A's seal

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Prospective clients soliciting facilities design and construction services; Public relying on competent engineering work product

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Clients receiving facilities design services; Public affected by engineered facilities

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Clients receiving facilities design services; Public safety stakeholders

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; Clients receiving work product generated by the tool; Public affected by resulting engineering work

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer B; Engineer A; Contractor; Public occupying or using the industrial facility

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer B; Engineer A; Contractor; Public occupying or using the industrial facility

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional begins offering services outside their area of demonstrated competence

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Must not represent capability to clients based solely on automated tool availability

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to refrain from offering services beyond competence

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose limitations to prospective clients

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to obtain supervision or associate with competent professionals before proceeding

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional discloses limitations and declines engagements beyond competence

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional acquires sufficient education, training, or supervised experience in the domain

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A begins to offer facilities design and construction services to the public after acquiring only a commercial CD-ROM tool

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional begins offering services outside their area of demonstrated competence

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Must not represent capability to clients based solely on automated tool availability

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to refrain from offering services beyond competence

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose limitations to prospective clients

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to obtain supervision or associate with competent professionals before proceeding

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional discloses limitations and declines engagements beyond competence

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional acquires sufficient education, training, or supervised experience in the domain

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services despite having no facilities design and construction experience

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: No subsequent training, education, or supervised experience in the target discipline is demonstrated

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Must not perform out-of-discipline design without demonstrated competence

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to practice only within areas of competency

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation of other engineers to question and report competence concerns

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to retain or recommend specialists for out-of-discipline components

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Must not seal or certify work product generated by a tool the professional cannot independently evaluate

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to obtain competent supervision before delivering work product

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to verify that tool outputs meet applicable professional standards

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Must not seal or certify work product generated by a tool the professional cannot independently evaluate

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to obtain competent supervision before delivering work product

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to verify that tool outputs meet applicable professional standards

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Must not seal or certify work product generated by a tool the professional cannot independently evaluate

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to obtain competent supervision before delivering work product

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to verify that tool outputs meet applicable professional standards

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: No subsequent training, education, or supervised experience in the target discipline is demonstrated

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Must not perform out-of-discipline design without demonstrated competence

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to practice only within areas of competency

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Obligation of other engineers to question and report competence concerns

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to retain or recommend specialists for out-of-discipline components

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail... Engineer A orders the CD-ROM

CD-ROM Engineering Design Tool
type: CommercialEngineeringSoftwareMarketingResource
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
created by: Unnamed commercial vendor
document title: Interactive Library of Standard Design CD-ROM (commercial solicitation)
resource class: Commercial Engineering Software Marketing Resource
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
text references: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
used by: Engineer A
used in context: Engineer A relies on this commercial CD-ROM product as the basis for offering facilities design and construction services despite having no prior experience in that domain. The tool's marketing claims that it enables any engineer to design any construction project regardless of experience are central to the ethical analysis of competence and professional responsibility.
version: Not specified
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:42:45.862955+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Engineer A relies on this commercial CD-ROM product as the basis for offering facilities design and construction services despite having no prior experience in that domain. The tool's marketing claims that it enables any engineer to design any construction project regardless of experience are central to the ethical analysis of competence and professional responsibility.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:42:45.862955+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A CD-ROM Self-Certification
type: Self-CertificationCompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A received a direct mail solicitation for a CD-ROM that claimed to allow virtually anyone to specify, design, and cost out facilities projects. Engineer A purchased the tool and used it as the basis for offering multi-discipline facilities design and construction services despite having no education or experience in civil, structural, mechanical, or electrical engineering as applied to facilities design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constraint class: Self-Certification Competence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, was prohibited from treating the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as a sufficient basis for claiming or representing competence to perform facilities design and construction services.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A acquired the CD-ROM and began offering facilities design and construction services
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
text references: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Self-Certification Competence Constraint': The Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint addresses limits on using tools the engineer lacks sufficient experience with, which partially overlaps. However, the present constraint is more specifically about the prohibition on treating tool acquisition as a substitute for domain competence certification, which is a distinct concept closer to self-certification and misrepresentation than to mere unfamiliarity with a tool. The match is a variant rather than an exact match; the existing class does not fully capture the self-certification dimension.
matched ontology class: UnfamiliarToolCompetenceConstraint
matched ontology label: Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, was prohibited from treating the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as a sufficient basis for claiming or representing competence to perform facilities design and construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Commercial Solicitation Reliance
type: CommercialSolicitationRelianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A received a direct mail solicitation advertising a CD-ROM that would allow virtually anyone to perform facilities design work, framing the professional experience requirement as an obstacle the product could circumvent. Engineer A purchased the product and relied on it as a competence basis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Commercial Solicitation Reliance Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from treating the direct mail commercial solicitation for the CD-ROM, which explicitly framed professional experience requirements as obstacles to be bypassed, as a sufficient basis for acquiring or claiming competence in facilities design and construction.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A received and acted upon the direct mail solicitation
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
text references: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from treating the direct mail commercial solicitation for the CD-ROM, which explicitly framed professional experience requirements as obstacles to be bypassed, as a sufficient basis for acquiring or claiming competence in facilities design and construction.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Commercial Solicitation Resistance
type: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The solicitation explicitly told engineers they could not afford to pass up unfamiliar jobs and that the CD-ROM eliminated the need for design experience. Engineer A failed to critically evaluate these claims and instead ordered the product and expanded services accordingly.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constraint class: Technology Substitution Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting the commercial solicitation's framing that professional competence requirements are obstacles to be bypassed by a software tool, and was required to critically evaluate the solicitation against professional ethics standards before acting on it.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional ethics principles governing competence and commercial solicitation evaluation
temporal scope: At the point of receiving and evaluating the commercial solicitation
text references: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
text references: no matter your design experience. For instance, never designed a highway before? No problem.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Technology Substitution Constraint'
matched ontology class: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
matched ontology label: Technology Substitution Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was constrained from accepting the commercial solicitation's framing that professional competence requirements are obstacles to be bypassed by a software tool, and was required to critically evaluate the solicitation against professional ethics standards before acting on it.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing
type: CompetenceReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Competence Reporting Capability
capability statement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that Engineer B appeared to lack competence to design structural footings and to report those concerns to the construction contractor.
case context: Engineer A, working on a design/build industrial facility project, identified that Engineer B, a chemical engineer retained by the contractor to design structural footings, appeared to lack the necessary training in foundation design, and reported his concerns to the contractor.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Identifying Engineer B's apparent lack of foundation design training and reporting concerns about Engineer B's competence to the contractor.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
text references: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that Engineer B appeared to lack competence to design structural footings and to report those concerns to the construction contractor.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Self-Assessment
type: CompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A failed to accurately assess the boundaries of their own competence before offering facilities design and construction services, not recognizing that a chemical engineering background without facilities design experience did not qualify the engineer to hold out those services.
case context: Engineer A is a chemical engineer who ordered a CD-ROM design library and began offering facilities design and construction services to clients without possessing the requisite domain knowledge or experience.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Engineer A began offering facilities design and construction services despite having no facilities design and construction experience, demonstrating an absence of accurate self-assessment of competence boundaries.
proficiency level: basic
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:28.378823+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Competence Self-Assessment Capability': Competence Limit Recognition Capability covers recognizing the boundaries of one's own technical competence when assigned a task and taking appropriate action. This new capability is closely related but differs in emphasis: Competence Limit Recognition Capability is framed around a task assignment context where the engineer is asked to do something, whereas this capability concerns the proactive self-assessment required before offering services to the market. The holding-out and misrepresentation dimensions are not captured in the existing class. The match is a variant rather than identical, so medium confidence is appropriate.
matched ontology class: CompetenceLimitRecognitionCapability
matched ontology label: Competence Limit Recognition Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A failed to accurately assess the boundaries of their own competence before offering facilities design and construction services, not recognizing that a chemical engineering background without facilities design experience did not qualify the engineer to hold out those services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:28.378823+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Discipline Facilities Offer
type: Cross-DisciplineCompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no apparent substantive background in facilities design and construction, offered multi-discipline facilities design services after acquiring a commercial CD-ROM, without possessing the education or experience required in civil, structural, mechanical, or electrical engineering.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constraint class: Cross-Discipline Competence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A, licensed as a chemical engineer, was prohibited from offering or performing facilities design and construction services encompassing civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering disciplines in which the engineer lacked the requisite education, training, and experience.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A offered and undertook facilities design and construction services
text references: An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience.
text references: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, licensed as a chemical engineer, was prohibited from offering or performing facilities design and construction services encompassing civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering disciplines in which the engineer lacked the requisite education, training, and experience.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Diploma Mill Equivalence
type: DiplomaMillEquivalenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The Board analogized Engineer A's reliance on the commercial CD-ROM to diploma mill self-certification, noting that both involve a perfunctory process that does not involve comprehensive study, examination, or practice, and that both are contrary to the basic ethical principles of the Code of Ethics.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constraint class: Diploma Mill Equivalence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from relying on the CD-ROM acquisition process, which the Board characterized as functionally equivalent to a diploma mill certification, as a basis for representing competence in facilities design and construction.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Board analysis
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A used the CD-ROM as a competence credential
text references: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
text references: The direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: The direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from relying on the CD-ROM acquisition process, which the Board characterized as functionally equivalent to a diploma mill certification, as a basis for representing competence in facilities design and construction.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Certification Avoidance
type: Self-CertificationAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Self-Certification Avoidance Capability
capability statement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that purchasing and using the CD-ROM did not constitute a legitimate basis for representing competence in facilities design and construction, effectively self-certifying competence without substantive education, examination, or experience.
case context: Engineer A ordered a commercial CD-ROM design tool and used it as the basis for holding out facilities design and construction services, without obtaining the substantive education and experience required to practice competently in that domain.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstrated through: Treating the CD-ROM purchase as sufficient qualification to offer facilities design services, analogous to a diploma mill self-certification.
proficiency level: basic
text references: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner
text references: the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills'
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that purchasing and using the CD-ROM did not constitute a legitimate basis for representing competence in facilities design and construction, effectively self-certifying competence without substantive education, examination, or experience.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Solicitation Critical Evaluation
type: SolicitationCriticalEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Solicitation Critical Evaluation Capability
capability statement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to critically evaluate the direct mail solicitation that framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit and implied that a CD-ROM could substitute for domain knowledge.
case context: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design background, received a direct mail solicitation for a CD-ROM design tool and ordered it without critically evaluating the solicitation's implicit claim that the tool could confer competence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Failure to recognize the solicitation as misrepresenting the basis for professional competence, resulting in purchase of the CD-ROM and offering of out-of-competence services.
proficiency level: basic
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to critically evaluate the direct mail solicitation that framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit and implied that a CD-ROM could substitute for domain knowledge.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Solicitation Evaluation
type: SolicitationCriticalEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Solicitation Critical Evaluation Capability
capability statement: Engineer A lacked the capability to critically evaluate the commercial solicitation and failed to recognize that its framing of professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit was a warning sign that the tool could not substitute for domain expertise.
case context: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design experience, received a solicitation claiming that a CD-ROM library enabled any engineer to design any construction project regardless of experience, and acted on it without critical scrutiny.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Engineer A ordered the CD-ROM and began offering facilities design services without questioning the solicitation's claims, indicating an absence of critical evaluation of the marketing material.
proficiency level: basic
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:28.378823+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.55
match reasoning: Via class 'Solicitation Critical Evaluation Capability': CADD Proficiency Capability addresses recognizing when a technological tool is being used as a substitute for professional judgment, which partially overlaps. However, that class is scoped to CADD systems and proficiency within a known tool context, whereas this capability concerns critically evaluating an external commercial solicitation that misrepresents what a tool can do before the engineer even acquires it. The awareness dimension and the solicitation-evaluation context are sufficiently distinct to warrant a new class. No existing class captures the front-end critical evaluation of marketing claims directed at engineers.
matched ontology class: CADDProficiencyCapability
matched ontology label: CADD Proficiency Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A lacked the capability to critically evaluate the commercial solicitation and failed to recognize that its framing of professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit was a warning sign that the tool could not substitute for domain expertise.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:28.378823+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Specialist Retention Judgment
type: SpecialistRetentionJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Specialist Retention Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that a multi-discipline facilities design and construction project required retention of qualified specialists in civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering, and instead attempted to cover those domains through a CD-ROM tool.
case context: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, undertook a multi-discipline facilities design and construction project involving civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering without retaining specialists in those domains.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Attempting to perform multi-discipline facilities design services without retaining qualified specialists in the relevant engineering disciplines.
proficiency level: basic
text references: a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services on the project
text references: engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that a multi-discipline facilities design and construction project required retention of qualified specialists in civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering, and instead attempted to cover those domains through a CD-ROM tool.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology Substitution CD-ROM
type: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design experience, received a commercial solicitation promising that a CD-ROM would allow any engineer to perform construction project design regardless of prior experience. Engineer A ordered the tool and began offering facilities design services on that basis.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Technology Substitution Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from treating the commercial CD-ROM design library as a substitute for the engineering education, training, and experience required to competently perform facilities design and construction services.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2.a; professional ethics principles governing competence
temporal scope: From the point Engineer A received the solicitation and considered ordering the CD-ROM onward
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Technology Substitution Constraint'
matched ontology class: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
matched ontology label: Technology Substitution Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from treating the commercial CD-ROM design library as a substitute for the engineering education, training, and experience required to competently perform facilities design and construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology Substitution Facilities
type: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The Board explicitly stated that technology must never be a replacement or substitute for engineering judgment, and that professional engineering cannot be reduced to reliance on computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constraint class: Technology Substitution Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from using the CD-ROM design tool as a replacement or substitute for the engineering judgment, education, and professional experience required to perform facilities design and construction services.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Board position on technology in engineering practice
temporal scope: Throughout Engineer A's use of the CD-ROM to offer and perform facilities design services
text references: It is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
text references: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Technology Substitution Constraint'
matched ontology class: TechnologySubstitutionConstraint
matched ontology label: Technology Substitution Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from using the CD-ROM design tool as a replacement or substitute for the engineering judgment, education, and professional experience required to perform facilities design and construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Tool Substitution Recognition
type: TechnologyNon-SubstitutionJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that the CD-ROM design library was being marketed as a substitute for domain competence rather than as an aid to a competent practitioner, and failed to resist treating tool possession as conferring professional qualification.
case context: The CD-ROM solicitation explicitly stated that design experience was irrelevant because the tool handled all design tasks. Engineer A ordered the tool and offered services on that basis, failing to recognize the tool could not supply the professional judgment required.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Engineer A accepted the solicitation's premise that the CD-ROM enabled competent facilities design regardless of experience and began offering such services, treating the tool as a replacement for the domain knowledge the engineer did not possess.
proficiency level: basic
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:28.378823+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability'
matched ontology class: TechnologyNon-SubstitutionJudgmentCapability
matched ontology label: Technology Non-Substitution Judgment Capability
matches existing: true
source text: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize that the CD-ROM design library was being marketed as a substitute for domain competence rather than as an aid to a competent practitioner, and failed to resist treating tool possession as conferring professional qualification.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:28.378823+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool CD-ROM
type: UnfamiliarToolCompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A had no prior experience with the CD-ROM tool and no domain knowledge in facilities design against which to evaluate or verify its outputs. The tool was used as the primary basis for offering and performing professional engineering services in an unfamiliar domain.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constraint class: Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A, having no prior experience evaluating or verifying the outputs of the CD-ROM design tool and no background in the domain it addressed, was required to either acquire adequate competence before use or limit reliance on the tool's outputs, and could not use the tool as the basis for professional work products delivered to clients.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a
temporal scope: Throughout Engineer A's use of the CD-ROM to produce facilities design work products
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
text references: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint'
matched ontology class: UnfamiliarToolCompetenceConstraint
matched ontology label: Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, having no prior experience evaluating or verifying the outputs of the CD-ROM design tool and no background in the domain it addressed, was required to either acquire adequate competence before use or limit reliance on the tool's outputs, and could not use the tool as the basis for professional work products delivered to clients.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A lacking facilities design experience before Engineer A receiving the CD-ROM solicitation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
from entity text: Engineer A lacking facilities design experience
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Solicitation Receipt
to entity text: Engineer A receiving the CD-ROM solicitation
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A receiving the CD-ROM solicitation
interval before: Solicitation Receipt
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A receiving the CD-ROM solicitation before Engineer A ordering the CD-ROM
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail... Engineer A orders the CD-ROM
from entity: Solicitation Receipt
from entity text: Engineer A receiving the CD-ROM solicitation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A ordering the CD-ROM
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A ordering the CD-ROM
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Self-Assessment Footing
type: CompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer B
capability class: Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, failed to accurately assess the boundaries of his own competence before undertaking structural footing design, proceeding despite lacking the requisite expertise.
case context: Engineer B, a professional engineer with a chemical engineering background and no apparent subsequent training in foundation design, was retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings as part of an industrial facility.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Accepting a commission to design structural footings for an industrial facility without possessing apparent training or experience in foundation design.
proficiency level: basic
text references: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
text references: the Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, failed to accurately assess the boundaries of his own competence before undertaking structural footing design, proceeding despite lacking the requisite expertise.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:08.208638+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Footing Design Cross-Discipline
type: Cross-DisciplineCompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B, whose degree and background was in chemical engineering, was separately retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any subsequent training in foundation design and reported concerns to the contractor. The Board found it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the footing design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constraint class: Cross-Discipline Competence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no demonstrated training or experience in foundation design, was prohibited from designing structural footings as part of an industrial facility construction project.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Case 94-8
temporal scope: At the time Engineer B was retained to design structural footings for the industrial facility
text references: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design.
text references: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no demonstrated training or experience in foundation design, was prohibited from designing structural footings as part of an industrial facility construction project.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:50:05.033406+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Facilities Design CD-ROM Software
type: CommercialEngineeringSoftwareMarketingResource
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
created by: Unidentified commercial vendor
document title: Commercial CD-ROM product marketed to engineers for facilities design and construction
resource class: Commercial Engineering Software Marketing Resource
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
used by: Engineer A
used in context: Identified as the commercial tool Engineer A relied upon as a purported basis for competency in facilities design and construction, which the Board found to be an inadequate substitute for genuine professional education and experience
version: Unspecified
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:19.921322+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
synthesis literal: version
comment: Identified as the commercial tool Engineer A relied upon as a purported basis for competency in facilities design and construction, which the Board found to be an inadequate substitute for genuine professional education and experience
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:19.921322+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

After Competency Shortcut Purchase; before service offering begins
type: Instant

Predates the case narrative; becomes salient at point of solicitation receipt
type: ProperInterval

After receiving the solicitation, before offering new services
type: Instant

At point of analysis; retroactively applicable from service offering onward
type: Instant

At point of service offering; persists throughout
type: ProperInterval

Prior to ordering the CD-ROM
type: Instant

Before CD-ROM purchase; initial contact point
type: Instant

After ordering the CD-ROM
type: ProperInterval

Solicitation Receipt → Competency Shortcut Purchase
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Simply sign and return this letter today and you'll be among the first engineers to see how this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever and increase your firm's profits.
causal step1: Solicitation Receipt -- Engineer A receives direct mail advertising a CD-ROM claiming any engineer can design any project regardless of experience
causal step2: Promotional Material Acceptance -- Engineer A reads and accepts the premise that pointing and clicking can substitute for design experience
causal step3: Competency Shortcut Purchase -- Engineer A orders the CD-ROM, implicitly accepting its premise
cause: Solicitation Receipt
cause text: Solicitation Receipt
counterfactual: Without receiving the solicitation promising competency 'no matter your design experience,' Engineer A would not have ordered the CD-ROM to pursue unfamiliar facilities design work
effect: Competency Shortcut Purchase
effect text: Competency Shortcut Purchase
necessary factors: Engineer A's willingness to respond to the solicitation
necessary factors: Marketing claims that design experience was unnecessary ('no matter your design experience')
necessary factors: Receipt of the direct mail solicitation advertising the CD-ROM
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Compelling marketing message + Engineer A's interest in expanding services + low barrier to ordering (sign and return letter)
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Unauthorized Service Offering → Ethical Precedent Application
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
causal step1: Unauthorized Service Offering -- Engineer A offers facilities design and construction services outside his competency
causal step2: Ethical Precedent Application -- Prior BER decisions from 1971, 1978, and 1994 become applicable to Engineer A's situation
cause: Unauthorized Service Offering
cause text: Unauthorized Service Offering
counterfactual: Had Engineer A not offered services outside his competency, the competency precedents would not be triggered for evaluation of his conduct
effect: Ethical Precedent Application
effect text: Ethical Precedent Application
necessary factors: Code Section II.2.a governing competence
necessary factors: Engineer A offering services outside his area of competence
necessary factors: Existence of prior BER decisions (71-2, 78-5, 94-8) addressing professional competency
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: An engineer practicing outside competency + existing precedent on competency obligations
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competency Shortcut Purchase → CD-ROM Delivery
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
causal step1: Competency Shortcut Purchase -- Engineer A orders the CD-ROM
causal step2: CD-ROM Delivery -- The CD-ROM product is delivered, making the tool physically available
cause: Competency Shortcut Purchase
cause text: Competency Shortcut Purchase
counterfactual: Without ordering the CD-ROM, the product would never have been delivered to Engineer A
effect: CD-ROM Delivery
effect text: CD-ROM Delivery
necessary factors: Engineer A's act of ordering the CD-ROM
necessary factors: Existence of the product available for delivery
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Placement of the order + vendor fulfillment process
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Unauthorized Service Offering → Inadequate Competency Basis
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to “specify, design and cost out” a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
causal step1: Unauthorized Service Offering -- Engineer A markets and provides facilities design services
causal step2: Competency Gap Exposure -- Engineer A's lack of facilities design experience becomes a material condition of the engagement
causal step3: Inadequate Competency Basis -- The CD-ROM is established as an inappropriate foundation for professional competency, amounting to 'self-certifying' competency
cause: Unauthorized Service Offering
cause text: Unauthorized Service Offering
counterfactual: If Engineer A had obtained appropriate education and experience or retained qualified specialists, the competency basis would have been adequate
effect: Inadequate Competency Basis
effect text: Inadequate Competency Basis
necessary factors: Engineer A's lack of appropriate engineering education and experience in facilities design
necessary factors: Engineer A's reliance on the CD-ROM as the foundation for offering services
necessary factors: The CD-ROM being an inappropriate substitute for professional competency
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Reliance on a 'how to' CD-ROM in place of education and experience to offer professional services
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CD-ROM Delivery → Unauthorized Service Offering
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
causal step1: CD-ROM Delivery -- The CD-ROM is delivered and physically available
causal step2: Unauthorized Service Offering -- Engineer A begins actively marketing and providing facilities design and construction services
cause: CD-ROM Delivery
cause text: CD-ROM Delivery
counterfactual: Without the delivered CD-ROM as the foundation, Engineer A would have lacked even the purported basis to begin offering these services
effect: Unauthorized Service Offering
effect text: Unauthorized Service Offering
necessary factors: Engineer A's intent to enter the facilities design and construction market
necessary factors: Engineer A's reliance on the CD-ROM as his competency basis
necessary factors: Physical availability of the CD-ROM tool
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Possession of the tool + Engineer A's decision to market services he believed it enabled
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Reporter
type: CompetenceReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Competence Reporter Footing Concerns
has obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Engineer A, a professional engineer working on a design/build industrial facility project, identified that Engineer B lacked competence to design structural footings and reported those concerns to the construction contractor.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Not specified; working on design/build industrial facility
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Competence Reporting Engineer
text references: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
text references: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
text references: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:21.046484+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, a professional engineer working on a design/build industrial facility project, identified that Engineer B lacked competence to design structural footings and reported those concerns to the construction contractor.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:21.046484+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Out-of-Competence Footing Design
type: Out-of-CompetenceEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer B Competence Boundary Footing Design
has obligation: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Footing Design Obligation
actor: Engineer B
case involvement: Engineer B, a professional engineer with a chemical engineering background and no apparent training in foundation design, was retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings for an industrial facility, a domain outside Engineer B's established competence.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Chemical engineering; no apparent training in foundation or structural design
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Out-of-Competence Engineer
text references: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
text references: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering
text references: it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:21.046484+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B, a professional engineer with a chemical engineering background and no apparent training in foundation design, was retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings for an industrial facility, a domain outside Engineer B's established competence.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:21.046484+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Ethical Precedent Application
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Unauthorized Service Offering
causes state change: Established professional ethics precedents became normatively binding on Engineer A's conduct, framing the service offering as ethically impermissible under existing standards.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Ethics Violation Confirmed
initiates text: Precedent Binding State
severity: medium
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At point of analysis; retroactively applicable from service offering onward
temporal sequence: 8
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Prior BER case decisions from 1971, 1978, and 1994 automatically became applicable to Engineer A's situation once the facts of the case matched the established patterns of competency-based ethical violations, triggering their normative force without any further agent decision.
has time: At point of analysis; retroactively applicable from service offering onward
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Commercial Solicitation Resistance Failure
type: CommercialSolicitationResistanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A received a direct mail solicitation marketing a CD-ROM as a means to expand practice into facilities design and construction, with the solicitation explicitly framing competence requirements as obstacles to profit. Engineer A accepted the solicitation's premise and ordered the tool.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer A Commercial Inducement Resistance Failure
obligation class: Commercial Solicitation Resistance Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to critically evaluate and resist the direct mail solicitation that framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit and promised that a CD-ROM could substitute for domain expertise in facilities design.
temporal scope: At the time of receiving and responding to the commercial solicitation
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
text references: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to critically evaluate and resist the direct mail solicitation that framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit and promised that a CD-ROM could substitute for domain expertise in facilities design.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool Deployment
type: UnfamiliarToolDeploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool Competence
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
activates obligation: Engineer A Tool Substitution Refusal
affects: Engineer A
active period: From acquisition and first use of the CD-ROM tool in connection with client services
affected parties: Clients receiving work product generated by the tool
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public affected by resulting engineering work
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general principle that engineers shall practice only in areas of competence into a specific prohibition on treating automated tools as competence proxies and a requirement to maintain independent professional judgment over tool outputs.
state class: Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State
subject: Engineer A's use of a CD-ROM design tool with no prior experience evaluating or verifying its outputs
terminated by: Not terminated within the scenario
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
text references: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
triggering event: Engineer A orders and deploys a CD-ROM design tool in a domain where Engineer A has no independent basis for assessing the tool's accuracy or limitations
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State'
matched ontology class: UnfamiliarToolDeploymentState
matched ontology label: Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State
matches existing: true
source text: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's use of a CD-ROM design tool with no prior experience evaluating or verifying its outputs
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Out-of-Competence Footing Design Obligation
type: CompetenceBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer B
case context: Engineer B was separately retained by a construction contractor on a design/build industrial facility project to design structural footings. Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Engineer B Competence Boundary Footing Design
obligation class: Competence Boundary Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, was obligated to refrain from designing structural footings for an industrial facility, a domain outside the engineer's competence.
temporal scope: At the time of accepting and performing the footing design assignment
text references: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
text references: the Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, was obligated to refrain from designing structural footings for an industrial facility, a domain outside the engineer's competence.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Commercial Inducement Resistance Failure
type: CommercialInducementResistancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Vendor solicitation for CD-ROM design tool
balancing with: Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A responded to a commercial solicitation that explicitly framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit, and accepted the vendor's claim that a CD-ROM tool eliminated the need for domain experience, without applying independent professional judgment to evaluate that claim.
confidence: 0.83
interpretation: The solicitation's language directly targeted engineers' commercial anxieties and explicitly dismissed competence requirements. A professionally responsible engineer should have recognized this framing as a commercial inducement incompatible with professional obligations and declined to act on it.
principle class: Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle
tension resolution: No genuine tension. The commercial inducement does not create a competing professional obligation. The principle requires the engineer to resist the inducement, not balance against it.
text references: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
text references: Simply sign and return this letter today and you'll be among the first engineers to see how this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever and increase your firm's profits.
text references: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar. Now - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A responded to a commercial solicitation that explicitly framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit, and accepted the vendor's claim that a CD-ROM tool eliminated the need for domain experience, without applying independent professional judgment to evaluate that claim.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Commercial Solicitation Resistance
type: CommercialSolicitationResistanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Tool Substitution Competence
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: The solicitation received by Engineer A stated that engineers cannot afford to pass up unfamiliar jobs and that a CD-ROM eliminates the need for design experience. Engineer A accepted this framing and ordered the tool without critically evaluating whether it could substitute for genuine domain competence.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer A Commercial Inducement CD-ROM Solicitation
obligation class: Commercial Solicitation Resistance Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to critically evaluate the commercial solicitation, which explicitly framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit, and to refrain from accepting its premise as justification for offering services outside the engineer's competence.
temporal scope: Upon receipt of the commercial solicitation
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
text references: Now - - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
text references: Simply sign and return this letter today and you'll be among the first engineers to see how this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever and increase your firm's profits.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to critically evaluate the commercial solicitation, which explicitly framed professional competence requirements as obstacles to profit, and to refrain from accepting its premise as justification for offering services outside the engineer's competence.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities Design
type: CompetenceBoundaryPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Facilities design and construction services
balancing with: Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, began offering facilities design services after acquiring a CD-ROM tool, without obtaining the education or experience required to practice competently in civil, structural, mechanical, or electrical engineering.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: The competence boundary for facilities design encompasses civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering disciplines. A chemical engineering background does not satisfy that boundary, and a commercial software tool does not substitute for the required education and experience.
principle class: Competence Boundary Principle
tension resolution: The commercial appeal of the CD-ROM and the vendor's marketing framing competence requirements as obstacles to profit do not override the obligation to remain within competence boundaries.
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
text references: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction. A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, began offering facilities design services after acquiring a CD-ROM tool, without obtaining the education or experience required to practice competently in civil, structural, mechanical, or electrical engineering.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Reporter Footing Concerns
type: CompetenceRecognitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Engineer B's structural footing design assignment
balancing with: Collegial Notification Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A, working on the same design/build project, recognized that Engineer B lacked the competence to design structural footings and reported those concerns to the contractor, fulfilling the obligation to act when another practitioner's qualifications are in doubt.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: Recognizing and reporting competence concerns about another engineer on the same project is an affirmative professional obligation, not merely a permissible act. The Board held that Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report concerns.
principle class: Competence Recognition Principle
tension resolution: The obligation to protect the public from incompetent work overrides any collegial reluctance to question another engineer's qualifications. Reporting to the contractor was the appropriate channel given the project structure.
text references: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor.
text references: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility and that Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Recognition Principle'
matched ontology class: CompetenceRecognitionPrinciple
matched ontology label: Competence Recognition Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, working on the same design/build project, recognized that Engineer B lacked the competence to design structural footings and reported those concerns to the contractor, fulfilling the obligation to act when another practitioner's qualifications are in doubt.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Honesty Omission
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Prospective clients seeking facilities design and construction services
balancing with: Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: By offering facilities design and construction services without disclosing to prospective clients that Engineer A had no experience or training in that domain, Engineer A implicitly represented a level of competence that did not exist, constituting a form of professional dishonesty through omission.
confidence: 0.82
interpretation: Honesty in professional practice requires not only avoiding affirmative misrepresentations but also refraining from conduct that creates false impressions about one's qualifications. Offering services in an unfamiliar domain without disclosure of that unfamiliarity misleads clients about the basis on which they are engaging the engineer.
principle class: Honesty
tension resolution: Honesty and competence obligations are mutually reinforcing. Full honesty would require disclosing the lack of domain experience, which would in turn prevent the engineer from offering the services at all.
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Honesty'
matched ontology class: Honesty
matched ontology label: Honesty
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience... orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: By offering facilities design and construction services without disclosing to prospective clients that Engineer A had no experience or training in that domain, Engineer A implicitly represented a level of competence that did not exist, constituting a form of professional dishonesty through omission.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Risk
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Facilities design and construction services offered to prospective clients
balancing with: Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle
balancing with: Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: By offering facilities design and construction services without the requisite competence, Engineer A created a risk that members of the public who rely on engineered facilities would be exposed to designs that lacked the professional judgment necessary to ensure their safety.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle is implicated whenever an engineer offers services outside their competence, because the public and clients cannot independently assess whether the engineer is qualified. The principle requires engineers to protect the public by maintaining competence boundaries even when commercial pressures push toward expansion.
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: Public welfare paramountcy reinforces the competence obligation. There is no competing principle that would justify offering incompetent services to the public.
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle'
matched ontology class: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience... orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: By offering facilities design and construction services without the requisite competence, Engineer A created a risk that members of the public who rely on engineered facilities would be exposed to designs that lacked the professional judgment necessary to ensure their safety.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Scope of Practice Facilities Design
type: ScopeofPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A's chemical engineering license and background did not encompass facilities design and construction. The engineer expanded into this domain solely on the basis of a commercial CD-ROM solicitation, without acquiring the requisite competence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constraint class: Scope of Practice (Constraint)
constraint statement: Engineer A, as a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, was prohibited by professional ethics code provisions from offering or performing facilities design and construction services, which fall outside the scope of practice supported by the engineer's education, training, and experience.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2.a
temporal scope: Throughout the period Engineer A offered and performed facilities design services
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Scope of Practice (Constraint)'
matched ontology class: Scope of Practice
matched ontology label: Scope of Practice (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, was prohibited by professional ethics code provisions from offering or performing facilities design and construction services, which fall outside the scope of practice supported by the engineer's education, training, and experience.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Boundary Footing Design
type: CompetenceBoundaryPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Structural footing design for industrial facility
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, undertook the design of structural footings for an industrial facility, a task requiring civil and structural engineering competence that Engineer B did not possess.
confidence: 0.95
interpretation: A chemical engineering degree and background does not confer competence to perform structural foundation design. Accepting the engagement without that competence violated the principle prohibiting practice outside one's area of qualification.
principle class: Competence Boundary Principle
tension resolution: The competence boundary obligation overrides any duty to serve the client by accepting the work. The proper response was to decline or to retain a qualified structural engineer.
text references: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
text references: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design, and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, undertook the design of structural footings for an industrial facility, a task requiring civil and structural engineering competence that Engineer B did not possess.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Commercial Inducement CD-ROM Solicitation
type: CommercialInducementResistancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Direct mail CD-ROM marketing solicitation for facilities design
balancing with: Competence Boundary Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A responded to a direct mail solicitation marketing a CD-ROM as a means to expand practice into facilities design, accepting the vendor's implicit framing that the tool was sufficient to enable competent practice in a new domain.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: The vendor's marketing of the CD-ROM as a route to expanded practice is precisely the kind of commercial solicitation that engineers must critically evaluate and resist. The obligation to resist such inducements is heightened when the solicitation explicitly frames competence requirements as obstacles to profit.
principle class: Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle
tension resolution: The commercial inducement resistance principle and the competence boundary principle reinforce each other here. Both independently required Engineer A to decline the solicitation and refrain from offering the services.
text references: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
text references: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A responded to a direct mail solicitation marketing a CD-ROM as a means to expand practice into facilities design, accepting the vendor's implicit framing that the tool was sufficient to enable competent practice in a new domain.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology Substitution CD-ROM Design
type: TechnologySubstitutionProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: CD-ROM-generated facilities design outputs
balancing with: Competence Boundary Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A used a CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the engineering judgment, education, and experience required to perform facilities design, rather than as an aid to be evaluated by a qualified practitioner.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The Board explicitly stated that technology must never be a replacement or substitute for engineering judgment. A CD-ROM that generates design outputs cannot supply the foundational knowledge needed to evaluate those outputs critically.
principle class: Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
tension resolution: The technology substitution prohibition and competence boundary principle converge: the tool cannot remedy the competence gap, and using the tool in place of competence violates both principles simultaneously.
text references: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
text references: it is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle'
matched ontology class: TechnologySubstitutionProhibitionPrinciple
matched ontology label: Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
matches existing: true
source text: it is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A used a CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the engineering judgment, education, and experience required to perform facilities design, rather than as an aid to be evaluated by a qualified practitioner.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology Substitution Violation
type: TechnologySubstitutionProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: CD-ROM design tool used to offer facilities design services
balancing with: Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A treated a CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the domain knowledge and professional judgment required to practice facilities design and construction engineering, rather than as an aid subject to substantive professional evaluation.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: The Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle applies not only to AI tools but to any technological tool that an engineer uses as a replacement for, rather than an aid to, independent professional judgment. A design tool cannot supply the foundational competence that the engineer lacks.
principle class: Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
tension resolution: The two principles are complementary here. Both are violated by the same conduct: using a software tool to offer services in a domain where the engineer lacks the competence to evaluate the tool's outputs.
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle'
matched ontology class: TechnologySubstitutionProhibitionPrinciple
matched ontology label: Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
matches existing: true
source text: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience. For instance, never designed a highway before? No problem. Just point to the 'Highways' window and click.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A treated a CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the domain knowledge and professional judgment required to practice facilities design and construction engineering, rather than as an aid subject to substantive professional evaluation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Specialist Retention Obligation Multi-Discipline Project
type: SpecialistRetentionObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Facilities design requiring civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering disciplines
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: In multi-discipline projects such as facilities design and construction, engineers who lack competence in required technical domains are obligated to retain or recommend qualified specialists rather than attempting to perform those tasks themselves or leaving them unaddressed.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The Board's references to BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 establish that engineers must either possess the required competence or retain those who do. This applies both to prime professionals managing multi-discipline projects and to engineers who accept assignments in domains outside their background.
principle class: Specialist Retention Obligation Principle
tension resolution: The obligation to serve the client does not authorize accepting work in domains where competence is absent. The proper service to the client is to ensure qualified specialists are engaged, not to attempt the work without qualification.
text references: engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
text references: the Board recognized 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project'
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: In multi-discipline projects such as facilities design and construction, engineers who lack competence in required technical domains are obligated to retain or recommend qualified specialists rather than attempting to perform those tasks themselves or leaving them unaddressed.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Solicitation Receipt
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
causes state change: Engineer A became aware of a product marketing itself as a competency substitute for facilities design and construction work.
concept category: Event
event type: exogenous
initiates text: Awareness of Competency Shortcut Product
severity: low
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Before CD-ROM purchase; initial contact point
temporal sequence: 2
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer A received a direct mail solicitation advertising a CD-ROM product claiming to enable any engineer to design and cost out construction projects regardless of prior experience.
has time: Before CD-ROM purchase; initial contact point
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Tool Substitution Competence
type: ToolSubstitutionforCompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool Competence
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
activates obligation: Engineer A Tool Substitution Refusal
affects: Engineer A
active period: From acquisition of the CD-ROM through any engagement in which Engineer A delivers facilities design work product based solely on the tool's outputs
affected parties: Clients receiving facilities design services
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public affected by engineered facilities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms the general principle that engineers shall practice only in areas of competence into a specific prohibition on treating automated tools as competence proxies and a requirement to maintain independent professional judgment over tool outputs.
state class: Tool Substitution for Competence State
subject: Engineer A's reliance on a commercial CD-ROM as a substitute for facilities design and construction knowledge
terminated by: Not terminated within the scenario
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
text references: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
triggering event: Engineer A orders a CD-ROM marketed as enabling any engineer to design any construction project regardless of design experience
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Tool Substitution for Competence State': Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State captures the use of a tool without prior experience. This case adds the distinct dimension that the tool is being used as a wholesale substitute for domain competence rather than merely as an unfamiliar instrument within an area where the professional otherwise has expertise. The substitution-for-competence aspect is materially different and ethically more serious, warranting a distinct class, though the existing class is the closest match.
matched ontology class: UnfamiliarToolDeploymentState
matched ontology label: Unfamiliar Tool Deployment State
matches existing: true
source text: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's reliance on a commercial CD-ROM as a substitute for facilities design and construction knowledge
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Tool Substitution for Competence
type: ToolSubstitutionforCompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool Competence
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
activates obligation: Engineer A Tool Substitution Refusal
affects: Engineer A
active period: From acquisition of the CD-ROM and commencement of facilities design services onward
affected parties: Clients receiving facilities design services
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Public safety stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
principle transformation: Transforms the general principle that engineers shall practice only in areas of competence into a specific prohibition on treating automated tools as competence proxies and a requirement to maintain independent professional judgment over tool outputs.
state class: Tool Substitution for Competence State
subject: Engineer A's reliance on a commercial CD-ROM as a functional substitute for engineering education and experience in facilities design
terminated by: Not resolved in the case; would terminate upon Engineer A obtaining genuine domain competence or ceasing to offer the services
text references: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment
text references: Relying on a how to CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety
text references: technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment
triggering event: Engineer A's decision to use the CD-ROM as the basis for performing facilities design and construction services rather than as a supplement to existing expertise
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:40.738200+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's reliance on a commercial CD-ROM as a functional substitute for engineering education and experience in facilities design
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:40.738200+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Promotional Material Acceptance
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: chemical engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Acceptance of a false premise that technology can replace substantive competency development
guided by principle: Engineer A Technology Substitution Violation
guided by principle: Public Welfare Paramountcy Engineering Competence
guided by principle text: Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts
guided by principle text: Protection of Public Health and Safety
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: receptive and credulous
initiates text: Competency Gap Awareness State
initiates text: Susceptibility to Self-Certification State
intended outcome: Identify a means to expand practice into new engineering service areas
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
raises obligation: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
raises obligation: Multi-Discipline Project Specialist Retention
raises obligation text: Obligation to Practice Within Competency
requires capability text: Critical evaluation of professional development claims
requires capability text: Self-assessment of competency boundaries
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Prior to ordering the CD-ROM
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: false
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design or construction experience, receives and engages with a direct mail solicitation claiming that a CD-ROM can substitute for substantive engineering education and experience in unfamiliar disciplines.
has time: Prior to ordering the CD-ROM
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CD-ROM Delivery
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Competency Shortcut Purchase
causes state change: The CD-ROM became available to Engineer A as a tool, creating the proximate condition enabling the subsequent service offering.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: CD-ROM Tool Available
initiates text: Perceived Competency Basis Present
severity: medium
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: After Competency Shortcut Purchase; before service offering begins
temporal sequence: 5
terminates text: Awareness of Competency Shortcut Product
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Following Engineer A's order, the CD-ROM product was delivered, making the tool physically available for use as an attempted basis for competency in facilities design and construction work.
has time: After Competency Shortcut Purchase; before service offering begins
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Competence Services
type: Out-of-CompetenceEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Commercial Inducement CD-ROM Solicitation
adheres to principle: Engineer A Commercial Inducement Resistance Failure
adheres to principle: Engineer A Professional Honesty Omission
adheres to principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Risk
adheres to principle: Specialist Retention Obligation Multi-Discipline Project
has obligation: Engineer A Commercial Solicitation Resistance
has obligation: Engineer A Commercial Solicitation Resistance Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Engineer A is a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience who orders a CD-ROM design tool and begins offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients, practicing outside the domain of their established competence.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
has specialty: Chemical engineering
other attribute: lack_of_experience: No facilities design and construction experience
other attribute: tool_used: CD-ROM interactive library of standard design
role category: provider_client
role class: Out-of-Competence Engineer
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:42:28.940730+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A is a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience who orders a CD-ROM design tool and begins offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients, practicing outside the domain of their established competence.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:42:28.940730+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design
type: ToolSubstitutionRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A used a commercially marketed CD-ROM as the sole basis for entering the facilities design field, relying on the tool's outputs rather than on genuine engineering judgment and experience in civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Engineer A Technology Substitution CD-ROM Design
obligation class: Tool Substitution Refusal Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the domain knowledge, education, and professional experience required to competently perform facilities design and construction services.
temporal scope: Throughout the period of using the CD-ROM to perform facilities design services
text references: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment
text references: Relying on a how to CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety
text references: it is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the CD-ROM design tool as a substitute for the domain knowledge, education, and professional experience required to competently perform facilities design and construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competency Gap Exposure
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Outside Competence Domain
initiates: Engineer B Cross-Discipline Footing Design
causes state change: Engineer A's professional competency boundary became a relevant and active constraint on any subsequent service offering in facilities design and construction.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Competency Deficit Active
initiates text: Professional Boundary Condition
severity: high
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Predates the case narrative; becomes salient at point of solicitation receipt
temporal sequence: 1
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Engineer A's lack of facilities design and construction experience became a material condition of the case once the CD-ROM solicitation was received and acted upon, establishing the foundational competency deficit relevant to all subsequent events.
has time: Predates the case narrative; becomes salient at point of solicitation receipt
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities
type: CompetenceBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, responded to a direct mail solicitation for a CD-ROM design tool and began offering facilities design and construction services despite having no apparent education, training, or experience in that domain.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities Design
obligation class: Competence Boundary Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, was obligated to refrain from offering and performing facilities design and construction services.
temporal scope: At the time of ordering the CD-ROM and beginning to offer facilities design services
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, was obligated to refrain from offering and performing facilities design and construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
case context: By offering facilities design and construction services to the public, Engineer A implicitly represented competence in that domain. The representation was unsupported by any relevant experience and rested solely on possession of a commercial software tool.
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
constrained entity: Engineer A
constraint class: Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance Obligation
constraint statement: Engineer A was constrained from representing to prospective clients that the engineer was qualified to perform facilities design and construction services when no such qualification existed, as the CD-ROM tool did not confer the education, training, or experience required for competent practice in that domain.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2.a; professional ethics provisions on misrepresentation
temporal scope: From the point Engineer A began advertising or offering facilities design services
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: no matter your design experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was constrained from representing to prospective clients that the engineer was qualified to perform facilities design and construction services when no such qualification existed, as the CD-ROM tool did not confer the education, training, or experience required for competent practice in that domain.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM Facilities Design
type: Self-CertificationProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Facilities design and construction services offered on basis of CD-ROM acquisition
balancing with: Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A treated the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as sufficient basis to represent himself as competent to perform facilities design and construction services, without obtaining any substantive education, supervised experience, or formal qualification in the relevant engineering disciplines.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: Acquiring a commercial tool and using it to generate design outputs is not equivalent to obtaining professional competence. The Board analogized this conduct to diploma mill self-certification, treating it as a misrepresentation of qualification basis rather than merely a competence gap.
principle class: Self-Certification Prohibition Principle
tension resolution: The self-certification prohibition addresses the representational wrong of claiming competence through tool acquisition. The technology substitution prohibition addresses the operational wrong of using the tool in place of judgment during practice. Both are violated here and reinforce each other.
text references: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
text references: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
text references: The direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A treated the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as sufficient basis to represent himself as competent to perform facilities design and construction services, without obtaining any substantive education, supervised experience, or formal qualification in the relevant engineering disciplines.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Tool Substitution Refusal
type: ToolSubstitutionRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: The commercial solicitation explicitly claimed that the CD-ROM enabled any engineer to design any construction project regardless of experience. Engineer A accepted this claim and used the tool as a basis for entering a domain of practice in which the engineer had no competence.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Engineer A Technology Substitution Violation
obligation class: Tool Substitution Refusal Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the CD-ROM design library could not substitute for the domain knowledge and professional experience required to competently practice facilities design and construction, and to refrain from treating acquisition of the tool as conferring competence to offer those services.
temporal scope: Upon ordering the CD-ROM and deciding to offer new services based on its availability
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Now - - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.82
match reasoning: Via class 'Tool Substitution Refusal Obligation': The Technology Non-Substitution Obligation captures the duty to ensure technological tools serve as instruments under the engineer's direction rather than substitutes for professional judgment. This case instantiates that concept specifically in the context of a CD-ROM design library being used to enter an entirely new domain of practice, which is a variant of the same principle. Medium confidence because the existing class focuses on tools within an established practice area, while this case involves using a tool to enter a domain where no competence exists at all.
matched ontology class: TechnologyNonSubstitutionObligation
matched ontology label: Technology Non-Substitution Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Now - - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the CD-ROM design library could not substitute for the domain knowledge and professional experience required to competently practice facilities design and construction, and to refrain from treating acquisition of the tool as conferring competence to offer those services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramountcy Engineering Competence
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
invoked by: Engineer B
applied to: Facilities design and structural footing design affecting public safety
balancing with: Faithful Agent Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: The Board grounded the competence obligations at issue in the fundamental duty to protect public health and safety, treating the use of a CD-ROM as a substitute for genuine competence as a disregard for the protective role that professional engineers play.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: Competence requirements are not bureaucratic formalities but are grounded in the paramount obligation to protect the public. Practicing outside one's competence is a violation of public welfare paramountcy because it exposes the public to undetected technical errors.
principle class: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
tension resolution: The paramount duty to public welfare establishes the foundation for all competence obligations. Client or employer interests in having work performed quickly or cheaply do not override the public's interest in having work performed by qualified practitioners.
text references: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
text references: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle'
matched ontology class: PublicWelfareParamountcyPrinciple
matched ontology label: Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The Board grounded the competence obligations at issue in the fundamental duty to protect public health and safety, treating the use of a CD-ROM as a substitute for genuine competence as a disregard for the protective role that professional engineers play.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:48:00.517540+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Boundary Overreach
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Facilities design and construction services offered by Engineer A
balancing with: Commercial Inducement Resistance Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, began offering facilities design and construction services after acquiring a CD-ROM design tool, without obtaining the training, education, or supervised experience necessary to practice competently in that domain.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The Competence Principle is violated when an engineer offers services in a domain for which the engineer has no substantive background, relying instead on a commercial software tool that the vendor claims eliminates the need for domain experience. Acquiring a tool does not constitute acquiring competence.
principle class: Competence Principle
tension resolution: No legitimate tension exists here. The commercial solicitation's framing of competence requirements as obstacles to profit does not create a genuine competing professional value. The Competence Principle controls without qualification.
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Principle'
matched ontology class: CompetencePrinciple
matched ontology label: Competence Principle
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail... Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, began offering facilities design and construction services after acquiring a CD-ROM design tool, without obtaining the training, education, or supervised experience necessary to practice competently in that domain.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:01.804237+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Outside Competence Domain
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: CD-ROM Delivery
activated by event: Inadequate Competency Basis
activates constraint: Engineer A Scope of Practice Facilities Design
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
activates obligation: Multi-Discipline Project Specialist Retention
affects: Engineer A
active period: From the moment Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins offering facilities design and construction services, persisting indefinitely until Engineer A acquires genuine competence or withdraws from the domain
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Prospective clients soliciting facilities design and construction services
affected parties: Public relying on competent engineering work product
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
principle transformation: Transforms the general competence principle into a discipline-specific prohibition, and activates a parallel obligation on observing engineers to report competence concerns to the responsible party.
state class: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer A's professional competence relative to facilities design and construction services
terminated by: Not terminated within the scenario
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
triggering event: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services despite having no facilities design and construction experience
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Outside Area of Competence'
matched ontology class: OutsideCompetence
matched ontology label: Outside Area of Competence
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's professional competence relative to facilities design and construction services
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool Competence
type: UnfamiliarToolCompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A had no facilities design experience and no basis for evaluating whether the CD-ROM tool produced accurate or code-compliant designs. The solicitation explicitly marketed the tool as a competence substitute, which Engineer A accepted without critical evaluation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A, having no prior experience evaluating or verifying the outputs of the CD-ROM design tool, was required to either acquire adequate competence in facilities design before relying on the tool, limit reliance on its outputs, or obtain qualified assistance, rather than deploying the tool as the sole basis for professional services.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2.a
temporal scope: From the point of ordering the CD-ROM and offering services based on it
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
text references: Simply sign and return this letter today and you'll be among the first engineers to see how this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint'
matched ontology class: UnfamiliarToolCompetenceConstraint
matched ontology label: Unfamiliar Tool Competence Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, having no prior experience evaluating or verifying the outputs of the CD-ROM design tool, was required to either acquire adequate competence in facilities design before relying on the tool, limit reliance on its outputs, or obtain qualified assistance, rather than deploying the tool as the sole basis for professional services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:46:31.879113+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Cross-Discipline Footing Design
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Inadequate Competency Basis
activates constraint: Engineer A Scope of Practice Facilities Design
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
activates obligation: Multi-Discipline Project Specialist Retention
affects: Engineer A
affects: Engineer B
active period: From Engineer B's retention by the contractor to perform structural footing design through the point Engineer A reported concerns
affected parties: Contractor
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Engineer B
affected parties: Public occupying or using the industrial facility
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
principle transformation: Transforms the general competence principle into a discipline-specific prohibition, and activates a parallel obligation on observing engineers to report competence concerns to the responsible party.
state class: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer B, a chemical engineer, performing structural footing design without demonstrated training or experience in foundation engineering
terminated by: Board determination that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the footing design; resolution not specified in the case facts
text references: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
text references: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
text references: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings
triggering event: Contractor's retention of Engineer B, a chemical engineer, to design structural footings for an industrial facility
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:40.738200+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Outside Area of Competence'
matched ontology class: OutsideCompetence
matched ontology label: Outside Area of Competence
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer B, a chemical engineer, performing structural footing design without demonstrated training or experience in foundation engineering
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:40.738200+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Inadequate Competency Basis
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
caused by action: Unauthorized Service Offering
causes state change: Engineer A's professional standing in the facilities design domain became ethically compromised, placing any client engaging those services at potential risk.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Client Reliance Risk
initiates text: Inadequate Competency State
initiates text: Professional Standards Violation Active
severity: high
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: At point of service offering; persists throughout
temporal sequence: 7
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Once Engineer A relied on the CD-ROM as the foundation for offering facilities design and construction services, the resulting competency basis became ethically and technically inadequate under established professional standards, as confirmed by prior BER precedents from 1971, 1978, and 1994.
has time: At point of service offering; persists throughout
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: CD-ROM Delivery
activated by event: Competency Gap Exposure
activates constraint: Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool Competence
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
terminated by event: Competency Gap Exposure
terminated by event: Inadequate Competency Basis
active period: From the point at which Engineer A begins offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients
affected parties: Prospective clients who may engage Engineer A for facilities design
affected parties: Public relying on competent engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms the general competence principle into a concrete prohibition on holding out services and a disclosure obligation toward prospective clients who cannot independently assess the professional's actual capability.
state class: Competence Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A's public offer of facilities design and construction services without disclosing the absence of relevant experience
terminated by: Not terminated within the scenario
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
text references: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
triggering event: Engineer A begins to offer facilities design and construction services to the public after acquiring only a commercial CD-ROM tool
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.8
match reasoning: Via class 'Competence Misrepresentation State': Outside Area of Competence captures the core competence boundary condition. However, that class describes a state in which a professional is already engaged and recognizes a boundary, whereas this case involves a professional affirmatively beginning to offer services in a domain where competence is absent, relying on a commercial tool as a substitute. The active misrepresentation and tool-substitution dimension is not captured by the existing class, so a new class is warranted while acknowledging the close relationship.
matched ontology class: OutsideCompetence
matched ontology label: Outside Area of Competence
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's public offer of facilities design and construction services without disclosing the absence of relevant experience
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:42:57.570207+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Competence Facilities Design
type: Out-of-CompetenceEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities Design
adheres to principle: Engineer A Competence Boundary Overreach
adheres to principle: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM Facilities Design
adheres to principle: Engineer A Technology Substitution CD-ROM Design
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramountcy Engineering Competence
has obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities
has obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
has obligation: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
has obligation: Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design
has obligation: Engineer A Tool Substitution Refusal
has obligation: Multi-Discipline Project Specialist Retention
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background or experience in facilities design and construction, ordered a CD-ROM design tool and began offering facilities design and construction services, relying on the tool as a substitute for professional education, experience, and engineering judgment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
has license: Professional Engineer
has specialty: Chemical engineering; no facilities design and construction background
role category: public_responsibility
role class: Out-of-Competence Engineer
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
text references: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was self-certifying his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:21.046484+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background or experience in facilities design and construction, ordered a CD-ROM design tool and began offering facilities design and construction services, relying on the tool as a substitute for professional education, experience, and engineering judgment.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:21.046484+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Multi-Discipline Project Specialist Retention
type: SpecialistRetentionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, began offering facilities design and construction services encompassing multiple engineering disciplines in which the engineer lacked competence, relying on a CD-ROM rather than retaining qualified specialists.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Specialist Retention Obligation Multi-Discipline Project
obligation class: Specialist Retention Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A, undertaking a multi-discipline facilities design and construction project involving civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering domains outside the engineer's chemical engineering background, was obligated to retain or recommend qualified specialists in those domains rather than attempting to perform all work personally using a CD-ROM tool.
temporal scope: At the time of accepting and performing multi-discipline facilities design work
text references: An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience
text references: engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
text references: the Board recognized the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, undertaking a multi-discipline facilities design and construction project involving civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering domains outside the engineer's chemical engineering background, was obligated to retain or recommend qualified specialists in those domains rather than attempting to perform all work personally using a CD-ROM tool.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
type: Self-CertificationAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A CD-ROM Self-Certified Competence
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A ordered a CD-ROM marketed as enabling anyone to specify, design, and cost out facilities projects, and used that acquisition as the basis for offering professional facilities design services without obtaining substantive education, experience, or qualifications.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM Facilities Design
obligation class: Self-Certification Avoidance Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as a basis for representing competence to perform facilities design and construction services.
temporal scope: At the time of ordering the CD-ROM and representing competence to prospective clients
text references: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was self-certifying his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner
text references: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics
text references: not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called diploma mills whereby individuals self certify their competency based upon a perfunctory review process
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was self-certifying his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the purchase and use of a commercial CD-ROM design tool as a basis for representing competence to perform facilities design and construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A CD-ROM Self-Certified Competence
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Competency Gap Exposure
activates constraint: Engineer A Unfamiliar Tool Competence
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
activates obligation: Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Competency Gap Exposure
terminated by event: Inadequate Competency Basis
active period: From the point Engineer A began offering facilities design and construction services using the CD-ROM through any engagement accepted on that basis
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Prospective clients
affected parties: Public relying on facilities designed under Engineer A's seal
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms the general competence principle into a concrete prohibition on holding out services and a disclosure obligation toward prospective clients who cannot independently assess the professional's actual capability.
state class: Competence Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, offering facilities design and construction services based on a commercial CD-ROM tool
terminated by: Not resolved in the case; would terminate upon Engineer A declining the work or obtaining substantive education and experience in facilities design
text references: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency
text references: Engineer A in a sense was self-certifying his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
triggering event: Engineer A's acquisition and use of a CD-ROM marketed as enabling anyone to specify, design, and cost out a facilities project, and subsequent offer of those services to clients
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:43:40.738200+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, offering facilities design and construction services based on a commercial CD-ROM tool
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:43:40.738200+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
type: CompetenceBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design
defeasible under: Engineer A Tool Substitution for Competence
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design
case context: Engineer A received a commercial solicitation promoting a CD-ROM that claimed to enable any engineer to design any construction project regardless of experience. Engineer A ordered the tool and began offering facilities design and construction services outside the engineer's domain of competence.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Engineer A Competence Boundary Overreach
obligation class: Competence Boundary Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A, as a licensed chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, was obligated to refrain from offering facilities design and construction services, regardless of the availability of a CD-ROM design tool.
temporal scope: At the point of deciding whether to order the CD-ROM and offer new services
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.9
match reasoning: Via class 'Competence Boundary Obligation': This is a direct instantiation of the canonical Competence Obligation, which requires engineers to perform services only in areas of competence per NSPE II.2. The case presents a clear violation of that obligation. The existing CADD Proficiency Competence Obligation and Technology Non-Substitution Obligation are related but address tool-specific competence rather than the threshold duty to refrain from offering out-of-domain services entirely.
matched ontology class: CompetenceObligation
matched ontology label: Competence Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A, as a licensed chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, was obligated to refrain from offering facilities design and construction services, regardless of the availability of a CD-ROM design tool.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Footing Design
professional peer of: Engineer A

Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: By offering facilities design and construction services without disclosing the absence of any background or experience in that domain, Engineer A implicitly misrepresented qualifications to prospective clients who would rely on those representations in engaging the engineer.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer A Professional Honesty Omission
obligation class: Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to prospective clients that the engineer was qualified to perform facilities design and construction services, and to disclose the absence of relevant experience before soliciting or accepting such work.
temporal scope: At the point of offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients
text references: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
text references: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to prospective clients that the engineer was qualified to perform facilities design and construction services, and to disclose the absence of relevant experience before soliciting or accepting such work.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:45:48.212115+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Reporting Footing Concerns
type: CompetenceReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, working on the same design/build industrial facility project, identified that Engineer B lacked apparent competence in foundation design and reported those concerns to the contractor.
compliance status: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Engineer A Competence Reporter Footing Concerns
obligation class: Competence Reporting Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to report concerns about Engineer B's competence to design structural footings to the construction contractor, and did so.
temporal scope: During construction of the project when competence concerns arose
text references: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
text references: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
discovered in case: 121
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
first discovered in case: 121
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to report concerns about Engineer B's competence to design structural footings to the construction contractor, and did so.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T18:49:10.142160+00:00
was attributed to: Case 121 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competency Shortcut Purchase
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A CD-ROM Self-Certified Competence
initiates: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation
initiates: Engineer A Tool Substitution Competence
initiates: Engineer A Tool Substitution for Competence
concept category: Action
event role context: chemical engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Potential exposure of future clients and the public to unqualified engineering services
foreseen unintended effects: Self-certification of competency without substantive qualification
guided by principle: Engineer A Competence Boundary Overreach
guided by principle: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM Facilities Design
guided by principle: Public Welfare Paramountcy Engineering Competence
guided by principle text: Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts
guided by principle text: Protection of Public Health and Safety
guided by principle text: Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Self-Certification State
initiates text: Unqualified Practice Preparation State
intended outcome: Acquire a tool perceived as enabling expansion into facilities design and construction services to increase firm profits
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
raises obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
raises obligation: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
raises obligation: Multi-Discipline Project Specialist Retention
raises obligation text: Obligation to Practice Within Competency
requires capability text: Demonstrated facilities design and construction experience
requires capability text: Engineering judgment developed through time-tested practice
requires capability text: Substantive engineering education in civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: After receiving the solicitation, before offering new services
temporal sequence: 4
terminates text: Competency Gap Awareness State
violates obligation: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
violates obligation text: Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly
within competence: false
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM, implicitly accepting its premise that pointing and clicking through a software library constitutes a sufficient basis for professional competency in facilities design and construction across civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering domains.
has time: After receiving the solicitation, before offering new services
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Unauthorized Service Offering
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A CD-ROM Self-Certified Competence
initiates: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation
initiates: Engineer A Outside Competence Domain
initiates: Engineer B Cross-Discipline Footing Design
concept category: Action
event role context: chemical engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Exposure of clients and the public to unqualified engineering design
foreseen unintended effects: Misrepresentation of professional competency to prospective clients
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of harm to public health and safety from deficient design work
guided by principle: Engineer A Competence Boundary Overreach
guided by principle: Engineer A Public Welfare Risk
guided by principle: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM Facilities Design
guided by principle: Public Welfare Paramountcy Engineering Competence
guided by principle text: Ethical Obligation to Seek Work Only Within Areas of Competency
guided by principle text: Professional Judgment Over Technology Shortcuts
guided by principle text: Protection of Public Health and Safety
guided by principle text: Rigorous Credentialing Over Self-Certification
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Client Reliance on Unqualified Engineer State
initiates text: Public Safety Risk State
initiates text: Unqualified Practice Active State
intended outcome: Expand the firm's service portfolio and increase profits by capturing construction project work that would otherwise be declined
requires capability text: Civil engineering education and experience
requires capability text: Engineering judgment developed through substantive practice in facilities design and construction
requires capability text: Foundation and footing design expertise
requires capability text: Mechanical and electrical engineering knowledge for facilities
requires capability text: Structural engineering education and experience
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: After ordering the CD-ROM
temporal sequence: 6
terminates text: Unqualified Practice Preparation State
violates obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities
violates obligation: Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
violates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
violates obligation: Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
violates obligation: Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
violates obligation text: Obligation to Practice Within Competency
violates obligation text: Obligation to Protect Public Health and Safety
violates obligation text: Obligation to Represent Qualifications Honestly
violates obligation text: Obligation to Retain Qualified Specialists When Lacking Competency
within competence: false
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A begins actively marketing and providing facilities design and construction services to clients, relying solely on the CD-ROM as the basis for his claimed competency, despite having no relevant education or experience in that domain.
has time: After ordering the CD-ROM
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: Engineer A Competence Reporter
has role: Engineer A Out-of-Competence Facilities Design
has role: Engineer A Out-of-Competence Services
professional peer of: Engineer B