ProEthica Case 130 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.019958
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Applied Despite Prior Failures
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Applied Despite Prior Failures (Action 1) → Job Offer Extended (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER-Case-03-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 03-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 03-6 is just such a case. Here, Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm.
textreferences: BER Case 03-6 is just such a case. Here, Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm.
textreferences: In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.'
textreferences: This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
usedby: Board of Ethical Review to distinguish the present case from situations requiring mandatory disclosure, reinforcing the 'prudent but not required' conclusion for Engineer Intern A
usedincontext: Cited as a contrasting precedent establishing that when an engineer has an actual adjudicated finding of wrongdoing (contractor license revocation), there is an ethical obligation to disclose that fact on an employment application, even when the application question is narrowly worded; distinguishes between mere allegations (no required disclosure) and actual demonstrated violations (required disclosure)
version: BER Case 03-6
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.022926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER-Case-19-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 19-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer.
textreferences: In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer.
textreferences: In the present case, similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring
textreferences: The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure. In that case, the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of PE exam failures
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer's failure to voluntarily disclose a personal medical condition (autism/Asperger's Syndrome) to an employer does not violate the NSPE Code of Ethics; establishes the principle of personal privacy rights in employment contexts and that non-disclosure of personal information is not equivalent to deception or misrepresentation
version: BER Case 19-1
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.022601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER-Case-97-11
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 97-11
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 97-11 relates how, during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C.
textreferences: BER Case 97-11 relates how, during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C.
textreferences: In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C, the Board noted that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee...
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice—allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
textreferences: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in determining that Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of PE exam failures was not ethically required but was imprudent
usedincontext: Cited as the primary analogical precedent for the present case; establishes that an engineer is not automatically required to disclose a pending ethics complaint (a mere allegation) to a current client, but must weigh all factors and take prudent action; also establishes the balancing test between privacy rights and the obligation to avoid material omissions of fact
version: BER Case 97-11
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.022781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER Analogical Precedent Triangulation Cases 19-1 97-11 03-6
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated advanced analogical precedent triangulation capability by identifying three partially overlapping precedents (Cases 19-1, 97-11, 03-6), distinguishing their critical factual differences, and determining that Engineer Intern A's situation was most analogous to Case 97-11 while acknowledging the finely nuanced balance
casecontext: BER analysis of Engineer Intern A's pre-employment non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's systematic comparison of Cases 19-1 (medical condition non-disclosure, privacy prevails), 97-11 (pending allegation, no compelled disclosure), and 03-6 (adjudicated revocation, disclosure required) to determine which precedent governed Engineer Intern A's situation
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In the present case, similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before. But as in Case 97-11 and Case 03-6, privacy considerations are not the whole story.
textreferences: In the present case, similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before. But as in Case 97-11 and Case 03-6, privacy considerations are not the whole story.
textreferences: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.258949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER Career Phase Ethics Continuity Recognition
type: Career-PhaseEthicsContinuityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Career-Phase Ethics Continuity Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern A needed the capability to recognize that professional ethical obligations — including disclosure obligations in employment contexts — apply fully during the intern phase of his career, not only after licensure
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's navigation of employment disclosure obligations as an unlicensed engineer intern
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: The BER's affirmation that ethical obligations apply throughout all phases of an engineering career, starting with engineering school and emerging through the intern phase
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer Intern A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of engineering work apply throughout all phases of an engineer's career, starting with engineering school, emerging through the intern phase, and continuing through practice
textreferences: the ethics of an engineer's employment lie squarely within the Board's purview
textreferences: the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of engineering work apply throughout all phases of an engineer's career, starting with engineering school, emerging through the intern phase, and continuing through practice
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.258797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER Case 03-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER Case 19-1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536475
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

BER Case 97-11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Case 130 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

CausalLink_Applied Despite Prior Failures
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

CausalLink_Disclosed Third Exam Failure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

CausalLink_Hired Without Asking About Exa
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

CausalLink_Omitted Prior Exam Failures at
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Client B Manufacturing Project Client
type: Provider-ClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'project_type': 'Manufacturing project', 'awareness': 'Learned of complaint through third party, not from Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Client B was receiving engineering services from Engineer A on a manufacturing project when an ethics complaint was filed against Engineer A by Client C. Client B later learned of the complaint through a third party and expressed that Engineer A should have disclosed it.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 97-11 Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Provider-Client Role
sourcetext: during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project
textreferences: Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
textreferences: during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project
textreferences: told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.024012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was imprudent but not unethical for Engineer Intern A not to have mentioned at the interview his two previous failures to pass the PE exam, as the question was not asked by XYZ Consultants.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 202
answers question4: 203
answers question5: 301
answers question6: 304
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' finding rests on a question-dependent disclosure standard that, while defensible in isolation, fails to account for the materiality threshold embedded in the NSPE Code's prohibition on omissions that create false impressions. Engineer Intern A did not merely remain silent on an irrelevant biographical detail; he remained silent on the precise qualification fact — two prior PE exam failures — that was directly constitutive of the hiring condition XYZ Consultants had made explicit. When an employer states that PE licensure within 90 days is a condition of hire, and a candidate knows he has already failed twice, his silence about those failures is not a neutral omission but a representation by conduct that he is realistically positioned to satisfy that condition. Code provision III.3.a prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions, and the Board's analysis does not adequately explain why a candidate's affirmative presentation of himself as 'on track' to pass the PE exam — without disclosing two prior failures — falls outside that prohibition. The Board's shared-responsibility framing, which credits XYZ Consultants' failure to ask as a partial exculpation, inappropriately conditions Engineer Intern A's individual honesty obligation on the employer's investigative diligence, thereby weakening the Code's objectivity and truthfulness standard as an independent professional norm.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion does not address the temporal dimension of Engineer Intern A's disclosure obligation, which shifts materially once he accepts the offer and the 90-day licensure clock begins running. Even if one accepts the Board's finding that pre-interview silence was not unethical because no question was asked, a distinct and stronger obligation arises at the moment Engineer Intern A accepts employment under an explicit licensure condition. At that point, he transitions from a job applicant with a privacy interest in his exam history to a faithful agent who has contractually committed to achieving licensure within a defined period. The faithful agent obligation under the NSPE Code requires engineers to act in the interest of their employers and to notify them of facts material to the engagement. Engineer Intern A's knowledge that he had already failed twice — and therefore faced a statistically and regulatorily more precarious path to satisfying the 90-day condition — was precisely the kind of material risk information that a faithful agent is obligated to disclose. The Board's analysis conflates the pre-hire interview context with the post-acceptance employment context, treating them as governed by the same permissive standard, when in fact the ethical weight of disclosure increases substantially once the employment relationship and its attendant conditions are formally established. A more complete analysis would have found that while pre-interview silence may have been merely imprudent, post-acceptance silence about known licensure risk crossed into a breach of the faithful agent obligation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 101
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's reasoning is further undermined by the analogical precedent established in BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation on an employment application even though the application did not explicitly ask about non-engineering license disciplinary history. The Board in that case held that the materiality of the omitted fact — its direct relevance to the employer's assessment of the candidate's fitness — created an affirmative disclosure duty independent of whether the question was specifically posed. Engineer Intern A's two prior PE exam failures are at least as material to XYZ Consultants' hiring decision as Engineer F's contractor license revocation was to his prospective employer, because the PE exam history bears directly on the candidate's realistic ability to satisfy the explicit 90-day licensure condition. The Board's failure to engage with this precedent in the present case creates an internal inconsistency in the BER's ethical framework: it is difficult to reconcile a finding that Engineer F had an affirmative duty to disclose a collateral license revocation with a finding that Engineer Intern A had no affirmative duty to disclose directly job-relevant exam failures. A consistent application of the materiality-based disclosure standard from BER Case 03-6 would support a finding that Engineer Intern A's omission was not merely imprudent but ethically deficient under Code provisions I.5, II.3.a, and III.3.a, regardless of whether XYZ Consultants asked the right questions.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer Intern A's silence about two prior PE exam failures did constitute an implicit misrepresentation that he was realistically on track to satisfy the 90-day licensure condition. When XYZ Consultants made PE licensure within 90 days an explicit hiring condition, and Engineer Intern A represented at the interview that he intended to take the PE exam 'in the coming weeks,' the totality of that representation carried an implicit warranty of reasonable prospect of success. A candidate who has already failed the exam twice occupies a materially different position than a first-time candidate, and the statistical and regulatory realities of repeated failure — including the State X board's additional requirements after a third failure — were facts that directly bore on whether the 90-day condition was achievable. By presenting himself as a candidate on track for licensure without disclosing the two prior failures, Engineer Intern A allowed XYZ Consultants to form a false impression of his licensure trajectory. Code provision III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions, is directly implicated here. The omission was not merely imprudent; it created a materially false picture of Engineer Intern A's qualification status relative to the stated hiring condition, bringing the conduct closer to the boundary of ethical violation than the Board's conclusion acknowledges.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer Intern A's affirmative duty to disclose his prior exam failures crystallized no later than the moment he accepted the job offer with the 90-day licensure condition attached. Before acceptance, one might argue that the omission was a permissible silence in a competitive hiring context. But once Engineer Intern A accepted an offer whose central qualifying condition he had twice already failed to meet, his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Consultants — grounded in Code provisions I.6 and the faithful agent notification obligation — required him to ensure his employer was not operating under a materially false assumption about the feasibility of that condition. The 90-day clock began running at hire, and XYZ Consultants' ability to make informed decisions about staffing, project assignments, and contingency planning depended on accurate information about Engineer Intern A's licensure prospects. At the very latest, the duty to disclose arose at the commencement of employment, when the licensure condition became an active contractual and professional obligation rather than a prospective hiring criterion. The Board's framing, which treats the omission as a pre-hire matter governed solely by whether the question was asked, fails to account for the post-acceptance transformation of the omission from a competitive silence into a breach of the faithful agent relationship.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The Board's shared-responsibility framing — noting that XYZ Consultants failed to ask about exam history — does inappropriately dilute Engineer Intern A's individual ethical accountability. The NSPE Code's honesty and non-deception provisions are not conditioned on whether an employer asks the right questions. Code provision I.5 requires engineers to avoid deceptive acts, and III.3.a prohibits material omissions that create false impressions, without any qualifier that these obligations are activated only by direct inquiry. By distributing moral responsibility between Engineer Intern A's silence and XYZ Consultants' failure to probe, the Board implicitly adopts a question-and-answer model of professional honesty that is inconsistent with the Code's affirmative character. An engineer's obligation to be truthful and non-deceptive in professional representations is an independent duty, not a reactive one triggered by interrogation. The practical consequence of the Board's framing is that it creates a perverse incentive structure: engineers learn that material omissions are ethically permissible so long as employers fail to ask the precise question that would have elicited the damaging information. This outcome-dependent standard undermines the profession's integrity norms and is particularly problematic in hiring contexts where information asymmetry structurally favors the candidate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation on an employment application even though the application form did not explicitly ask about non-engineering license disciplinary history, provides strong analogical support for the conclusion that Engineer Intern A should have volunteered his prior PE exam failures without being asked. The analogical parallel is direct: in both cases, the undisclosed information was a material qualification fact bearing on the candidate's fitness for the specific role being sought; in both cases, the employer's failure to ask the precise question did not extinguish the candidate's disclosure obligation; and in both cases, the omission created a false impression of the candidate's professional standing. The key distinction the Board might draw — that a license revocation is an adjudicated adverse finding while exam failures are merely performance outcomes — does not hold under scrutiny when the hiring condition explicitly requires licensure within 90 days. In that context, two prior failures are not merely biographical data points; they are directly probative of the candidate's realistic ability to satisfy the central condition of employment, making them functionally equivalent in materiality to the revocation at issue in Case 03-6. The Board's failure to engage with this precedent in reaching its 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion represents a significant gap in its analogical reasoning.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: I.5.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The personal privacy right recognized in BER 19-1 — which protected Engineer A's non-disclosure of an autism diagnosis — does not extend to shield Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures, because the two categories of information are ethically distinguishable in kind, not merely in degree. BER 19-1 involved a medical condition that is protected under disability law frameworks, carries social stigma unrelated to professional competence, and whose non-disclosure does not create a false impression about a candidate's ability to satisfy a stated hiring condition. PE exam failure history, by contrast, is a direct performance record on the precise professional qualification that the employer has made a condition of hire. It is not a personal characteristic but a professional qualification history. The objectivity and truthfulness obligation under Code provision II.3.a applies with full force to representations about professional qualifications, and the privacy interest in exam failure history — while real — is substantially weaker than the privacy interest in medical diagnoses. When the omitted information is not a personal attribute but a direct measure of the candidate's track record on the specific credential the employer requires, the balance between privacy and truthfulness tips decisively toward disclosure, and the BER 19-1 precedent provides no meaningful shelter.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.1.e.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q203 and Q204: The tension between the Employer Hiring Due Diligence principle and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle should not be resolved by treating them as equally weighted competing obligations that cancel each other out — which is effectively what the Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion does. These principles operate at different levels of the ethical architecture. The employer's due diligence obligation is a prudential best-practice norm that, when neglected, exposes the employer to foreseeable risk; it is not a condition precedent that must be satisfied before the candidate's honesty obligations activate. The candidate's disclosure obligation, by contrast, is grounded in the Code's affirmative honesty provisions and the faithful agent relationship, both of which are independent of whether the employer asks the right questions. Regarding Q204, the Board's reliance on the Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection principle — counseling Engineer Intern A to disclose in his own long-term interest — is ethically weaker than grounding the disclosure norm in the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation. Framing disclosure as self-interested prudence rather than a duty owed to the employer transforms an ethical obligation into a strategic calculation, which undermines the normative force of the disclosure standard. The correct analytical move is to ground the disclosure obligation in the faithful agent relationship and the Code's honesty provisions, and to treat the prudential self-protection rationale as a secondary, reinforcing consideration rather than the primary basis for the norm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q301 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer Intern A did not fully discharge his duty of honesty toward XYZ Consultants by remaining silent about two prior PE exam failures. The Kantian universalizability test is instructive: if every engineer-in-training applying for positions with explicit licensure conditions were permitted to omit prior exam failure history whenever the employer failed to ask, the institution of professional hiring would be systematically undermined, as employers could never rely on candidates' representations about their qualification trajectories. This outcome is self-defeating and therefore fails the universalizability test. More directly, Code provision III.3.a prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions, and this prohibition functions as a deontological rule — it does not contain an exception for omissions that go undetected because the employer failed to probe. The absence of an explicit question from XYZ Consultants does not relieve Engineer Intern A of the duty because the duty is grounded in the nature of the representation being made, not in the interrogative structure of the interview. When Engineer Intern A represented himself as a candidate on track for licensure within 90 days, he implicitly represented that his exam history was consistent with that trajectory. The two prior failures were directly inconsistent with that implicit representation, and the Code's prohibition on material omissions required him to correct the false impression regardless of whether he was asked.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.e.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist standpoint, Engineer Intern A's silence about his prior exam failures produced a net harm that substantially outweighed any short-term benefit of securing employment. The harms were multiple and compounding: XYZ Consultants made a hiring decision based on a materially incomplete picture of Engineer Intern A's licensure prospects, committing resources, project assignments, and client commitments on the assumption that a licensed PE would be available within 90 days; the trust relationship between Engineer Intern A and his supervisor was materially undermined when the third failure and the State X regulatory bar were disclosed; Engineer Intern A's own career position was rendered more precarious than if he had disclosed upfront and potentially negotiated a modified timeline or a different role; and the profession's reputation for honest self-representation was marginally but genuinely harmed. The only consequentialist benefit of the non-disclosure — securing the job offer — was inherently unstable, as it depended on a condition (passing the PE exam on the third attempt) that Engineer Intern A's own track record made uncertain. A consequentialist analysis that accounts for the full probability-weighted outcomes, including the foreseeable risk of a third failure and its regulatory consequences in State X, would have counseled disclosure as the utility-maximizing strategy. The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion is consistent with this consequentialist analysis insofar as it acknowledges imprudence, but the magnitude of the net harm supports a stronger ethical finding.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q303: Applying virtue ethics, Engineer Intern A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and practical wisdom expected of an engineer-in-training. The virtue of practical wisdom — phronesis — requires not merely knowing the rules but perceiving the ethically salient features of a situation and responding appropriately. A practically wise engineer-in-training, aware that he had twice failed the PE exam and was applying for a position that made licensure within 90 days a condition of hire, would have recognized that his exam history was directly material to the employer's decision and that remaining silent about it, while technically permissible under a narrow question-and-answer standard, was inconsistent with the character of an honest professional. The virtue of integrity — understood as alignment between one's inner knowledge and one's outward representations — was compromised when Engineer Intern A allowed XYZ Consultants to form an impression of his licensure trajectory that his own experience contradicted. The virtue of courage, which in professional contexts includes the willingness to disclose unflattering but relevant information, was also absent. The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion captures the prudential failure but understates the virtue-ethical dimension: the conduct reflects not merely a strategic miscalculation but a deficit in the character traits — honesty, integrity, and practical wisdom — that the NSPE Code's preamble identifies as foundational to professional engineering practice.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 404
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: III.3.a.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q402 and Q404: The Board's analysis reveals a troubling question-dependence in its disclosure standard that, if taken to its logical conclusion, produces inconsistent and outcome-sensitive ethical guidance. Q402 exposes the core problem: if XYZ Consultants had directly asked about prior exam attempts, the Board would almost certainly have found that a false or evasive answer constituted a clear ethical violation. But the ethical character of the omission — its materiality, its effect on the employer's decision, its inconsistency with the candidate's implicit representation of being on track — does not change based on whether the question was asked. The information was equally material in both scenarios; only the mechanism of its concealment differed. Q404 further exposes the outcome-dependence of the Board's standard: if Engineer Intern A had passed the PE exam on his third attempt, the non-disclosure of two prior failures would likely have been treated as entirely inconsequential, even though the ethical quality of the omission at the time it was made was identical. An ethical standard that is retroactively validated or invalidated by subsequent outcomes is not a principled standard; it is a results-oriented rationalization. The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion, evaluated against these counterfactuals, appears to be influenced by the fact that the non-disclosure was ultimately discovered and caused harm, rather than by a principled analysis of the disclosure obligation at the time of the interview. A more coherent standard would assess the ethics of the omission based on the information available and the obligations in force at the time of the interview, independent of subsequent outcomes.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.538971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between the Personal Privacy Right and the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation by treating exam failure history as a personal qualification fact rather than a protected personal characteristic, yet it stopped short of imposing an affirmative disclosure duty. This resolution is analytically unstable. The privacy rationale that shielded Engineer A's autism diagnosis in BER 19-1 rested on the fact that a medical condition is categorically distinct from job performance capacity. Prior PE exam failures, by contrast, are not personal attributes — they are direct, objective evidence of whether a hiring condition can realistically be met. When the undisclosed fact is the very metric by which the employer's stated hiring condition is measured, the privacy interest collapses into the materiality analysis, and the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation should dominate. The Board's failure to draw this distinction explicitly leaves the privacy-versus-materiality boundary undefined in precisely the cases where it matters most.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Employer Hiring Due Diligence principle and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle were treated by the Board as mutually offsetting — XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about exam history effectively absorbed a portion of the ethical burden that would otherwise fall entirely on Engineer Intern A. This shared-responsibility framing is pedagogically problematic because it calibrates an engineer's honesty obligations to the sophistication of the employer's questioning, rather than to the materiality of the omitted fact. The NSPE Code's prohibition on material misrepresentation by omission in Code provision III.3.a. does not contain a question-dependence exception: the standard is whether a statement or omission creates a false impression, not whether the deceived party asked the right question. By allowing the employer's due diligence deficit to dilute the engineer's individual honesty obligation, the Board implicitly adopted a standard closer to caveat emptor than to the affirmative candor expected of a licensed professional. The more defensible synthesis would weight the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle as primary when the omitted fact is directly material to a stated hiring condition, and treat Employer Hiring Due Diligence as a secondary, mitigating factor relevant to remedy and relational responsibility — but not as a factor that reduces the engineer's independent ethical accountability.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 102
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.e.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between the Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection principle and the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation reveals a structural weakness in the Board's reasoning: by framing voluntary disclosure primarily as a matter of prudence — something Engineer Intern A should have done for his own relational benefit — the Board displaced the deontological core of the disclosure norm. The Faithful Agent Notification Obligation, grounded in Code provisions I.6. and II.3.a., frames disclosure as a duty owed to the employer because the employer's decision-making capacity depends on accurate information. When these two rationales are conflated, as the Board's imprudence finding implicitly does, the ethical force of the disclosure norm is weakened: an engineer who calculates that non-disclosure serves his short-term interest can rationalize the omission as merely imprudent rather than wrong. The analogical precedent from BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation without being asked, demonstrates that the Board has previously recognized an affirmative disclosure duty grounded in faithful agency rather than self-interest. The synthesis that best honors both the Code and the precedent is that the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation should be treated as the primary operative principle when pre-hire omissions concern facts material to a stated employment condition, with Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection serving only as a reinforcing, secondary rationale — not as a substitute for the deontological duty.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Was Engineer Intern A ethically obligated to proactively disclose his two prior PE exam failures at the interview, even though XYZ Consultants never asked about prior exam attempts?
focus: Engineer Intern A's pre-employment silence about two prior PE exam failures when applying for a position explicitly conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days — weighing the candidate's personal privacy interest and the employer's failure to ask against the materiality-based disclosure obligation and the implicit representation of being on track for licensure.
option1: Proactively volunteer the two prior PE exam failures at the interview, framing them in context of preparation and confidence in the upcoming attempt, so that XYZ Consultants can make an informed offer with accurate knowledge of the licensure trajectory
option2: Remain silent about prior exam failures in the absence of a direct question, relying on the employer's responsibility to conduct its own due diligence and on the candidate's reasonable belief that a third attempt will succeed, while accurately representing the intent to sit for the exam imminently
option3: Disclose the prior exam failures only if directly asked, but proactively request that the employer clarify or extend the 90-day licensure condition before accepting the offer, thereby surfacing the licensure risk without volunteering the specific failure history
role label: Engineer Intern A (Pre-Employment)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: Did Engineer Intern A have an affirmative ethical duty to volunteer his two prior PE exam failures at the interview with XYZ Consultants, given that the firm made PE licensure within 90 days an explicit condition of hire, even though he was never directly asked about his exam history?
focus: Engineer Intern A: PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment at Pre-Employment Interview
option1: Remain silent about prior exam failures at the interview, relying on the employer's failure to ask as establishing that the information was not required, while affirmatively representing intent to sit for the exam imminently
option2: Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview as directly material to the employer's stated 90-day licensure condition, framing the disclosure as part of an honest account of one's qualification trajectory
option3: Decline to volunteer prior exam failures at the interview but, upon accepting the offer, proactively disclose the two prior failures to the employer before the 90-day licensure clock begins running, treating acceptance as the point at which the faithful agent obligation to disclose material risk crystallizes
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.541291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP11
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP11
decision question: Once Engineer Intern A accepted employment under the 90-day licensure condition and subsequently failed the PE exam a third time — triggering State X's additional requirements — did his obligation to promptly disclose that failure to XYZ Consultants arise from a deontological faithful agent duty owed to his employer, from prudential self-interest in protecting the employment relationship, or from both, and does the grounding of that obligation affect its ethical force?
focus: Engineer Intern A: Post-Hire Faithful Agent Notification Obligation vs. Prudential Self-Protection After Third PE Exam Failure
option1: Promptly disclose the third PE exam failure and its State X regulatory consequences to XYZ Consultants as a faithful agent duty owed to the employer, framing the notification as fulfillment of a professional obligation to ensure the employer can make informed staffing and project decisions
option2: Disclose the third PE exam failure to XYZ Consultants after first consulting with a professional advisor or attorney to assess the employment consequences, treating the disclosure as a strategic relational decision rather than an immediate professional duty
option3: Disclose the third PE exam failure to XYZ Consultants while simultaneously presenting a concrete remediation plan — including a timeline for satisfying State X's additional requirements — framing the disclosure as a proactive faithful agent notification paired with a proposed path to fulfilling the employment condition
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.541416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP12
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP12
decision question: Does the personal privacy right recognized in BER 19-1 — which protected a medical condition from mandatory pre-employment disclosure — extend to shield Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam failures from an affirmative disclosure duty, or does the direct measurability of exam failures against the employer's stated hiring condition collapse the privacy interest into the materiality analysis such that the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation requires proactive disclosure regardless of whether the question was asked?
focus: Engineer Intern A: Privacy-Versus-Materiality Boundary and the Adequacy of a Question-Dependent Disclosure Standard for Pre-Employment Qualification History
option1: Treat prior PE exam failures as personal qualification history protected by a privacy interest equivalent in kind (though not degree) to the medical condition in BER 19-1, remaining silent at the interview on the ground that the employer's failure to ask establishes that the information was not required for the hiring decision
option2: Treat prior PE exam failures as categorically distinct from protected personal characteristics because they are the direct objective measure of the employer's stated hiring condition, and proactively disclose them at the interview as required by the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation regardless of whether the question was asked
option3: Decline to volunteer prior exam failures at the interview on privacy grounds but affirmatively ask XYZ Consultants to clarify the 90-day licensure condition and its flexibility, thereby creating an opportunity for the employer to elicit the relevant history through its own due diligence inquiry without unilaterally imposing a disclosure obligation on oneself
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.541499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP13
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP13
decision question: When applying for a position that explicitly conditions employment on achieving PE licensure within 90 days, and knowing he had already failed the PE exam twice, was Engineer Intern A ethically obligated to volunteer that exam failure history at the interview even though XYZ Consultants never asked about prior exam attempts?
focus: Engineer Intern A Pre-Employment PE Exam Failure Disclosure Decision
option1: Remain silent about prior PE exam failures at the interview, relying on the employer's failure to ask as relieving any affirmative disclosure duty, and disclose only upon direct inquiry or when a material post-hire change occurs (such as a third failure)
option2: Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview as part of a candid representation of licensure trajectory, treating the two failures as material qualification facts directly bearing on the employer's stated 90-day licensure condition
option3: Remain silent about prior PE exam failures at the interview but, upon accepting the offer and before commencing employment, proactively disclose the two prior failures to the employer as a faithful agent notification of material risk bearing on the 90-day licensure condition
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.541589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: After accepting employment conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days and then failing the PE exam a third time with State X board-imposed additional requirements triggered, was Engineer Intern A ethically obligated to notify XYZ Consultants promptly and to disclose the full scope of the board-imposed restrictions — not merely the fact of the failure?
focus: Engineer Intern A's post-hire obligation — once employed under the 90-day licensure condition — to notify XYZ Consultants promptly and completely upon learning that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed additional requirements before he could re-sit the examination, including the scope and likely duration of those board-imposed impediments.
option1: Promptly notify XYZ Consultants of the third exam failure and fully disclose the nature, scope, and likely duration of all board-imposed additional requirements, enabling the employer to immediately reassess project staffing, client commitments, and the feasibility of the original 90-day licensure condition
option2: Notify XYZ Consultants of the third exam failure promptly but defer full disclosure of the board-imposed additional requirements until their scope and duration are formally confirmed by the State X board, to avoid conveying speculative or incomplete regulatory information to the employer
option3: Disclose the third exam failure to the supervisor as a personal employment matter while simultaneously consulting with the State X board and a licensing attorney to develop a concrete remediation plan, then present the employer with both the failure disclosure and a proposed revised licensure timeline as a package, minimizing disruption to the employment relationship
role label: Engineer Intern A (Post-Hire)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should the Board treat XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about prior PE exam attempts as a factor that partially absorbs Engineer Intern A's individual disclosure obligation — producing a shared-responsibility finding — or should the engineer's affirmative honesty duty under the NSPE Code be assessed independently of the employer's investigative diligence, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary mitigating factor relevant to remedy rather than to the existence of the ethical obligation?
focus: The structural tension between the Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation — which places responsibility on XYZ Consultants to inquire about prior exam attempts when imposing a licensure condition — and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation — which places an affirmative honesty burden on Engineer Intern A independent of whether the question was asked — and whether these principles should be treated as equally weighted competing obligations that share and thereby dilute the ethical burden, or as obligations operating at different levels of the ethical architecture with the candidate's honesty duty as primary.
option1: Treat the employer's failure to ask about prior exam attempts as a partial exculpating factor that, combined with the candidate's privacy interest in exam history, supports a shared-responsibility finding in which the omission is imprudent but not an independent ethics violation
option2: Assess the engineer's pre-employment disclosure obligation independently of whether the employer asked, treating the materiality of the omitted fact — two prior failures directly bearing on a 90-day licensure condition — as sufficient to trigger an affirmative disclosure duty under III.3.a, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary factor relevant to remedy and relational responsibility
option3: Apply a graduated materiality standard that treats the employer's failure to ask as fully exculpating when the omitted information is personal or biographical in character, but as insufficient to excuse omission when the undisclosed fact is the direct metric by which the employer's stated hiring condition is measured — finding the omission in this case to cross the materiality threshold and constitute an ethics violation despite the employer's due diligence failure
role label: Engineering Firm Hiring Authority (XYZ Consultants)
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer Intern A have voluntarily disclosed his two prior PE exam failures at the interview with XYZ Consultants, given that PE licensure within 90 days was an explicit condition of hire, even though XYZ Consultants never asked about prior exam attempts?
focus: Engineer Intern A: Pre-Interview Disclosure of Prior PE Exam Failures Under a Licensure Condition of Hire
option1: Remain silent about prior exam failures at the interview, relying on the employer's failure to ask as relieving any affirmative disclosure obligation, while genuinely intending to pass on the next attempt
option2: Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview and represent the specific steps being taken to prepare for the next attempt, allowing XYZ Consultants to make a fully informed hiring decision
option3: Disclose prior exam attempt history only upon accepting the offer and before the 90-day licensure clock begins running, treating pre-offer silence as permissible competitive privacy but post-acceptance silence as a breach of the faithful agent relationship
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Once Engineer Intern A failed the PE exam a third time and triggered State X's additional requirements — making the 90-day licensure condition impossible to satisfy — did his faithful agent obligation require him to disclose this immediately and fully to his supervisor at XYZ Consultants, and does that post-hire disclosure obligation exist independently of whether the pre-hire omission was itself ethical?
focus: Engineer Intern A: Post-Hire Faithful Agent Obligation to Disclose Third PE Exam Failure and State X Regulatory Bar to Supervisor
option1: Disclose the third exam failure and the resulting State X regulatory bar to the supervisor promptly after receiving the results, providing full information about the impact on the 90-day licensure condition
option2: Disclose the third exam failure to the supervisor but defer full disclosure of the State X regulatory bar and its timeline implications until after independently consulting with the State X licensing board about available remediation pathways
option3: Disclose the third failure, the State X regulatory bar, and the two prior failures simultaneously to the supervisor, providing complete exam history context so the employer can make a fully informed decision about the employment relationship going forward
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should XYZ Consultants' hiring authority have asked Engineer Intern A directly about prior PE exam attempts before extending an offer conditioned on licensure within 90 days, and does the employer's failure to exercise this due diligence appropriately share moral responsibility for the subsequent trust breakdown — or does it improperly dilute Engineer Intern A's independent honesty obligation?
focus: XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority: Due Diligence Obligation to Inquire About Prior PE Exam Attempts When Imposing a Licensure Condition of Hire
option1: Extend the offer without asking about prior PE exam attempts, relying on the candidate's affirmative representations and treating exam history as information the candidate would volunteer if material
option2: Ask directly about prior PE exam attempts and failures as a standard component of the interview process whenever a licensure condition is imposed, treating this inquiry as a basic due diligence step equivalent to verifying educational credentials
option3: Require candidates to complete a written pre-employment qualification disclosure form that specifically asks about prior PE exam attempts and results before extending any offer conditioned on licensure, formalizing the due diligence inquiry as a structural hiring practice
role label: Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer Intern A have voluntarily disclosed his two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants at the interview, given that the employer made PE licensure within 90 days an explicit condition of hire but did not directly ask about prior exam attempts?
focus: Engineer Intern A: Pre-Employment PE Exam Failure History Disclosure at Interview
option1: Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview, framing them as context for the candidate's preparation plan and realistic timeline for satisfying the 90-day licensure condition
option2: Remain silent about prior exam failures at the interview on the grounds that the employer did not ask, while genuinely intending to pass on the third attempt and relying on the employer's own due diligence to surface any concerns about exam history
option3: Remain silent about prior failures at the interview but proactively disclose them to XYZ Consultants immediately upon accepting the offer, before the 90-day licensure clock begins running, so the employer can make an informed staffing and contingency decision
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.541031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Once Engineer Intern A accepted the offer and the 90-day licensure clock began running, did his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Consultants require him to disclose his two prior PE exam failures as material risk information bearing on the feasibility of the employment condition — independent of whether the pre-hire silence was itself unethical?
focus: Engineer Intern A: Post-Acceptance Faithful Agent Disclosure of Known Licensure Risk Once Employment Commences
option1: Disclose both prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants at the commencement of employment, before the 90-day clock begins running, so the employer can make informed decisions about staffing, project assignments, and contingency planning
option2: Proceed with employment without disclosing prior failures at commencement, on the basis that the pre-hire silence was not unethical and that the faithful agent obligation is satisfied by diligently preparing for and promptly disclosing the outcome of the third exam attempt
option3: Disclose prior exam failures to the direct supervisor shortly after commencing employment — framed as a proactive risk briefing rather than a correction of a pre-hire omission — so the employer can assess contingency options while Engineer Intern A prepares for the third attempt
role label: Engineer Intern A
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.541112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: Should XYZ Consultants' hiring authority have proactively inquired about Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam attempt history as a matter of due diligence when extending an offer conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days, and does the employer's failure to ask appropriately dilute Engineer Intern A's individual disclosure obligation?
focus: XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority: Employer Due Diligence Obligation to Inquire About PE Exam History When Imposing a Licensure Condition of Hire
option1: Directly ask the candidate at the interview about prior PE exam attempts and the number of failures as a standard due diligence step when imposing a 90-day licensure condition, treating this inquiry as a non-negotiable element of the hiring process for any position requiring near-term licensure
option2: Extend the offer without asking about prior exam attempts, relying on the candidate's professional honesty obligation to volunteer material qualification information and treating the employer's due diligence responsibility as satisfied by imposing the explicit 90-day licensure condition in the offer terms
option3: Extend a conditional offer that explicitly requires the candidate to certify in writing the number of prior PE exam attempts as part of the offer acceptance documentation, thereby formalizing the disclosure obligation without requiring the hiring authority to anticipate every material qualification question during the interview itself
role label: Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.541199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Disclosed Third Exam Failure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Disclosed Third Exam Failure (Action 4) → State X Additional Requirements Triggered (Event 5) — surfacing of full causal chain and consequences
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Employer Hiring Due Diligence Invoked By XYZ Consultants
type: EmployerHiringDueDiligenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Consultants interview and hiring process for Engineer Intern A
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Consultants, having advertised a position with an explicit 90-day PE licensure requirement, failed to ask Engineer Intern A about prior examination attempts or current examination eligibility during the interview, thereby contributing to the information asymmetry that led to a hiring decision based on an incomplete picture of the candidate's qualification trajectory
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When a firm sets an explicit licensure timeline as a condition of employment, it assumes a corresponding obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence about the candidate's ability to meet that condition; the firm's failure to ask about prior exam attempts is a contributing factor to the resulting situation, though it does not eliminate the candidate's own disclosure obligation
invokedby: XYZ Consultants Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
principleclass: Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants did not ask.
tensionresolution: The shared responsibility between candidate and employer means that both parties bear some ethical accountability for the information gap; the firm's failure to ask reduces but does not eliminate the candidate's independent disclosure duty
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.026311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Employment Commenced
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A Autism Non-Disclosure Privacy State
type: PrivacyRightvs.MaterialOmissionTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During hiring process and employment; resolved by Board finding that disclosure was not compelled
affectedparties: Employer
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer
stateclass: Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
subject: Engineer A's decision not to disclose autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to prospective employer
terminatedby: Board's determination that NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of medical condition; Engineer A had personal right to privacy
textreferences: Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer
textreferences: he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome
textreferences: the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure
triggeringevent: Engineer A's decision not to disclose autism diagnosis from fear of discrimination and career limitation
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.025451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 19-1 Autism Non-Disclosure Privacy Boundary
type: PrivacyRightMaterialOmissionBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to disclose his autism diagnosis to his employer out of fear of discrimination and career limitation, without lying or misrepresenting his qualifications.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 19-1)
constraintclass: Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's decision not to disclose his autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to his prospective employer was within the bounds of his privacy right, because the medical condition did not constitute a material omission that would have rendered his professional representations false or misleading — the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of personal medical conditions.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case 19-1; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure. In that case, the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy.
temporalscope: Pre-employment interview and hiring process
textreferences: The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure. In that case, the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy.
textreferences: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.259935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 19-1 Medical Condition Non-Disclosure Privacy Protection
type: AllegationNon-CompelledDisclosurePrivacyProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition (autism/Asperger's Syndrome) to a prospective employer out of fear of discrimination. The Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy and that non-disclosure was ethically permissible.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 19-1)
obligationclass: Allegation Non-Compelled Disclosure Privacy Protection Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was not ethically compelled to disclose his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis to a prospective employer, as the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel such disclosure and Engineer A retained a personal right to privacy regarding his medical condition.
sourcetext: In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer. The engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his obtaining employment, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome.
temporalscope: During pre-employment interactions with the prospective employer
textreferences: In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer. The engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his obtaining employment, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome.
textreferences: The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure. In that case, the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.257350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 19-1 PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
type: PEExamDisclosureEngineerIntern
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'condition': "Autism (Asperger's Syndrome)", 'disclosure_action': 'Did not disclose medical condition', 'board_finding': 'Non-disclosure was ethical; personal right to privacy applies', 'deception': 'None — no lies or misrepresentations made'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A in BER Case 19-1 failed to disclose a medical condition (autism/Asperger's Syndrome) to a prospective employer out of fear of discrimination. The Board found that the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of medical conditions and that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy, establishing a precedent for the non-disclosure analysis applied to Engineer Intern A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'applicant_to', 'target': 'Engineering Employer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
sourcetext: Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer
textreferences: Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer
textreferences: the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy
textreferences: the Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure
textreferences: the engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.023806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 19-1 Privacy vs Disclosure Balancing
type: PrivacyRightvsMaterialOmissionObligationBalancingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Privacy Right vs Material Omission Obligation Balancing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 19-1 exercised the capability to recognize that his privacy interest in non-disclosure of his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis was not overridden by any material omission obligation, correctly determining that the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of personal medical conditions
casecontext: Engineer A's decision not to disclose his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis to a prospective employer out of fear of discrimination
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy and was not compelled to disclose his medical condition, as it did not constitute a material fact requiring disclosure in the employment context
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 19-1)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure.
textreferences: The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure.
textreferences: the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.258363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 97-11 Allegation vs Adjudication Threshold Assessment
type: AllegationvsAdjudicationDisclosureThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 97-11 correctly assessed that a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C was a mere allegation that did not compel automatic disclosure to Client B, distinguishing between unproven allegations and adjudicated findings
casecontext: Engineer A's decision not to notify Client B of a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C regarding similar services
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report the pending complaint to Client B, noting that a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 97-11)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
textreferences: In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice—allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
textreferences: a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or a conclusion of law
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.258505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 97-11 Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
type: EthicsComplaintNon-DisclosingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license_status': 'Professional Engineer', 'complaint_status': 'Pending ethics complaint from Client C', 'disclosure_action': 'Did not disclose complaint to Client B', 'board_finding': 'Non-disclosure was ethical'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A was rendering services to Client B on a manufacturing project when a state board ethics complaint was filed by Client C regarding similar prior services. Engineer A chose not to disclose the pending complaint to Client B. The Board found this was ethical because the complaint was a mere allegation, not an adjudicated finding, and engineers should not be compelled to disclose potentially damaging unproven allegations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Client B'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_complaint_by', 'target': 'Client C'}
relationships: {'type': 'under_review_by', 'target': 'State Board of Professional Engineers'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
sourcetext: during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
textreferences: Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
textreferences: Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action
textreferences: during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
textreferences: it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.023587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 97-11 Pending Allegation Prudential Weighing
type: PendingAllegationPrudentialDisclosureWeighingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received notification of an ethics complaint by Client C alleging incompetence on a similar project to the one being performed for Client B. The Board found non-disclosure ethical but noted the engineer should weigh factors and consider providing background information.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 97-11)
obligationclass: Pending Allegation Prudential Disclosure Weighing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to actively weigh all relevant factors regarding the pending ethics complaint — including its nature, seriousness, and potential impact on Client B — and to take prudent action proportionate to those factors, which might have included providing Client B with appropriate background information.
sourcetext: 'Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.'
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the ethics complaint notification, during active service to Client B
textreferences: 'Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.'
textreferences: However, the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.257210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A BER 97-11 Pending Complaint Non-Compelled Disclosure to Client B
type: Non-CompelledPendingAllegationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was rendering services to Client B on a manufacturing project when the state board contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging incompetence on a similar project.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 97-11)
constraintclass: Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not automatically compelled to disclose to Client B the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, because the complaint was a mere allegation and not an adjudicated finding, and because no engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging and possibly false allegations — though Engineer A was required to weigh all factors and take prudent action.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3
sourcetext: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice—allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
temporalscope: During the period of active service to Client B while the ethics complaint from Client C was pending
textreferences: Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
textreferences: In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
textreferences: No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice—allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.259791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer A Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure to Client B
type: PendingEthicsComplaintNon-DisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time the ethics complaint was filed by Client C through Client B's discovery of the complaint via a third party
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Client C
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
stateclass: Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A's active client relationship with Client B while subject to pending ethics complaint from Client C
terminatedby: Client B learned of the complaint through another party and confronted Engineer A
textreferences: Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations
textreferences: Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
textreferences: the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
triggeringevent: State board contacted Engineer A regarding ethics complaint filed by Client C; Engineer A continued serving Client B without disclosure
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.025262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer F BER 03-6 Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Calibration
type: Allegationvs.AdjudicationDisclosureDistinctionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board distinguished Engineer F's situation from BER 97-11 by identifying the contractor license revocation as an adjudicated finding rather than a mere allegation, triggering a compelled disclosure obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer F (BER Case 03-6)
constraintclass: Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Constraint
constraintstatement: The disclosure obligation triggered for Engineer F was calibrated by the fact that his contractor's license revocation was an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — distinguishable from the pending complaint in BER 97-11 — establishing that the allegation/adjudication distinction is the operative constraint determining whether disclosure is compelled.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 03-6 contrasted with BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
temporalscope: At the time of completing the engineering firm employment application
textreferences: a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or a conclusion of law
textreferences: the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Compelled Disclosure
type: AdjudicatedWrongdoingEmploymentApplicationCompelledDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer F applied for a PE position and answered 'no' to a question about prior disciplinary history, despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer F (BER Case 03-6)
constraintclass: Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Application Compelled Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer F was ethically required to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm employment application, because the revocation constituted an actual adjudication of wrongdoing — not a mere allegation — and the narrow wording of the application question did not excuse omission of a materially relevant adjudicated finding.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 03-6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3
sourcetext: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
temporalscope: At the time of completing the engineering firm employment application
textreferences: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
textreferences: In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license
textreferences: On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure
type: AdjudicatedProfessionalMisconductEmploymentApplicationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer F, a PE and former fire sprinkler contracting firm owner, answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application when asked about disciplinary history or license revocation, despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use the contractor license number on another project.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer F
obligationclass: Adjudicated Professional Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer F was obligated to disclose on the engineering firm employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, because that revocation constituted an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — not a mere allegation — and the employment application asked about prior disciplinary history in professional practice.
sourcetext: On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
temporalscope: At the time of completing the employment application
textreferences: In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
textreferences: On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.256911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer F BER 03-6 Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Non-Disclosure
type: Non-EngineeringLicenseDisciplinaryHistoryEmploymentDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer F's contractor's license — not his engineering license — was revoked after he allowed an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use the contractor license number on another project. The employment application asked broadly about disciplinary history and license revocations.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer F
obligationclass: Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm employment application, recognizing that the disclosure obligation extended beyond his engineering license to include the contractor's license held in connection with his fire sprinkler contracting practice.
sourcetext: while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
temporalscope: At the time of completing the employment application
textreferences: In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license...
textreferences: while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.257047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Adjudicated Wrongdoing
type: AdjudicatedWrongdoingDisclosureObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer F completed the employment application through the Board's finding
affectedparties: Engineer F
affectedparties: Engineering firm employer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project
stateclass: Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation State
subject: Engineer F's obligation to disclose contractor license revocation on engineering firm employment application
terminatedby: Board's determination that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to disclose the revocation
textreferences: Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license
textreferences: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project
textreferences: This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing'
triggeringevent: Engineer F's contractor license was revoked due to an actual adjudicated violation; Engineer F answered 'no' to the question about disciplinary history on the employment application
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.025071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
type: ContractorLicenseRevocationOmittingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license_status': 'Professional Engineer', 'contractor_license': 'Revoked', 'pe_license': 'Not revoked or suspended', 'prior_role': 'Owner of fire sprinkler contracting firm', 'disclosure_action': "Answered 'no' to disciplinary question on employment application"}
caseinvolvement: Engineer F, a PE and former fire sprinkler contracting firm owner, answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application when asked about disciplinary actions against his professional engineering license, omitting that his contractor's license had been revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number. The Board found this omission was an ethical violation because it involved an actual adjudicated wrongdoing, not a mere allegation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:54.036651+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'applicant_to', 'target': 'Engineering Firm Hiring Authority'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license
textreferences: Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application
textreferences: Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm, which was required to have a contractor's license
textreferences: Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.023252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer F Non-Engineering License Disclosure Scope Failure
type: Non-EngineeringLicenseRevocationEmploymentDisclosureScopeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineering License Revocation Employment Disclosure Scope Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his contractor's license revocation fell within the scope of the employment application's disciplinary disclosure question, resulting in an impermissible negative response
casecontext: Engineer F's completion of an engineering firm employment application that asked about prior disciplinary history
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer F answered 'no' to the disciplinary history question despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number, which the BER found constituted an ethical obligation to disclose
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer F
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
textreferences: In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license
textreferences: On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.258082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A 90-Day Licensure Condition Temporal Constraint
type: TemporalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The 90-day licensure condition was the foundational temporal constraint structuring the entire employment relationship; its defeat by the board-imposed re-examination bar created the ethical crisis requiring disclosure and remediation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Temporal Constraint
constraintstatement: The employment offer imposed a hard temporal constraint requiring Engineer Intern A to obtain PE licensure within 90 days of hire — a deadline that became impossible to satisfy once the third exam failure triggered the State X board's re-examination eligibility bar.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: XYZ Consultants employment offer terms; State X Licensing Board Rules
sourcetext: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
temporalscope: 90 days from date of hire at XYZ Consultants
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.255480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Allegation vs Adjudication Threshold Assessment
type: AllegationvsAdjudicationDisclosureThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern A needed the capability to distinguish between his prior PE exam failures (not adjudicated misconduct) and the kind of adjudicated wrongdoing that would compel disclosure, in order to correctly assess his disclosure obligations
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's pre-employment non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The BER's analysis that Engineer Intern A's situation was more analogous to Case 97-11 (allegation, no compelled disclosure) than Case 03-6 (adjudicated revocation, disclosure required)
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
textreferences: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
textreferences: a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or a conclusion of law
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.257925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Board Re-Examination Bar Full Scope Disclosure
type: Board-ImposedRe-ExaminationBarEmployerNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board-imposed re-examination bar materially extended the licensure timeline beyond the 90-day condition, making it impossible for Engineer Intern A to satisfy the employment condition within the originally contemplated period
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Board-Imposed Re-Examination Bar Employer Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern A was constrained to disclose not only the third exam failure but also the complete regulatory consequence — that State X required additional experience and new references before he could sit for the exam again — so that XYZ Consultants could assess the true impact on the 90-day licensure condition.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State X Licensing Board Rules; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
temporalscope: At the time of disclosing the third exam failure result
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.029692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Board Restriction Complete Disclosure to Supervisor
type: Board-ImposedLicensureRestrictionCompleteDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Following his third PE exam failure, Engineer Intern A disclosed both the failure and the board-imposed additional requirements to his supervisor at XYZ Consultants.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: Board-Imposed Licensure Restriction Complete Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A was obligated to disclose to his supervisor not only the fact of his third exam failure but also the full scope of the State X licensing board's additional requirements — including the need for additional experience and new references — so that XYZ Consultants could assess the realistic timeline for licensure.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
temporalscope: At the time of post-hire disclosure, one month after starting work
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.027459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Career-Phase Ethics Applicability
type: Career-PhaseEthicsUniversalApplicabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 20-1: Engineer Intern A applied for and accepted a position at XYZ Consultants conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days, without disclosing two prior PE exam failures.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Career-Phase Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern A's pre-employment conduct and disclosure decisions are subject to full professional ethics review notwithstanding his intern (unlicensed) status, because engineering ethics apply from the intern phase onward.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Board of Ethical Review — BER Case 20-1 Discussion; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of engineering work apply throughout all phases of an engineer's career, starting with engineering school, emerging through the intern phase, and continuing through practice
temporalscope: From the point of engineering school enrollment through all phases of professional practice
textreferences: Thus, the ethics of an engineer's employment lie squarely within the Board's purview
textreferences: the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of engineering work apply throughout all phases of an engineer's career, starting with engineering school, emerging through the intern phase, and continuing through practice
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.259643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Employer Licensure Expectation Defeated
type: EmployerLicensureExpectationDefeatedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer Intern A's third PE exam failure through the Board's analysis; ongoing
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam
stateclass: Employer Licensure Expectation Defeated State
subject: XYZ Consultants' foundational hiring assumption that Engineer Intern A would achieve PE licensure within 90 days
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case; ongoing at time of Board review
textreferences: Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam
textreferences: the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A's failure to pass the PE exam on the third attempt, defeating XYZ Consultants' 90-day licensure condition
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.025766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Faithful Agent Post-Hire Disclosure Constraint
type: Post-HireLicensureImpedimentPromptDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The faithful agent duty operates as a continuous constraint on Engineer Intern A's obligation to keep his employer informed of material risks to the employment condition, not merely a one-time disclosure obligation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: As a faithful agent of XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A was constrained to advise his employer of the risk that the PE licensure condition could not be met within 90 days — both at the point of accepting the offer (given two prior failures) and immediately upon learning of the third failure and board restriction.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section IV.1 (faithful agent duty)
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
temporalscope: From offer acceptance through post-hire disclosure of third failure
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.255691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Faithful Agent Post-Hire Risk Notification
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A, as an employee of XYZ Consultants, disclosed his third exam failure and the board's additional requirements to his supervisor, fulfilling his faithful agent duty to keep his employer informed of material risks to project and staffing commitments.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: As an employee of XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A bore a faithful agent obligation to advise his employer of the risk that the PE licensure condition of his employment could not be satisfied within the 90-day period, including disclosing the board-imposed additional requirements that would further delay licensure.
sourcetext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of exam results, one month after starting work
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.028086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation
type: LicensureConditionEmploymentAcceptanceHonestRepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A accepted a position conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days without disclosing that he had already failed the PE exam twice, making his representation of being 'on track' for licensure potentially misleading.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: Licensure Condition Employment Acceptance Honest Representation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A was obligated to honestly represent his realistic prospects of obtaining PE licensure within 90 days when accepting the position from XYZ Consultants, including disclosing that this would be his third attempt and that prior failures had already occurred.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
temporalscope: At the time of offer acceptance from XYZ Consultants
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.027605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation Instance
type: LicensureConditionAcceptanceHonestRepresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A accepted a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days while having already failed the exam twice; his representation of intent to take the exam 'in the coming weeks' without disclosing the prior failure history created a materially optimistic impression of his licensure prospects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern A was constrained to honestly represent his realistic prospects of obtaining PE licensure within 90 days when accepting the XYZ Consultants offer — given his two prior failures, his upcoming third attempt, and the risk that a third failure would trigger a board-imposed re-examination bar — prohibiting acceptance under a materially optimistic representation of licensure prospects.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 20-1
sourcetext: At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the employment offer from XYZ Consultants
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.030034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Realistic Prospect Self-Assessment
type: LicensureConditionRealisticProspectSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Condition Realistic Prospect Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern A needed the capability to honestly assess his realistic probability of obtaining PE licensure within 90 days given his prior exam failure history before accepting the position
casecontext: Engineer Intern A accepted employment conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days despite having previously failed the exam multiple times
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Intern A accepted the position without disclosing prior failures, and subsequently failed his third attempt with board-imposed restrictions preventing timely re-examination
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:30:58.991279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:30:58.991279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
textreferences: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.028420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Material Omission Privacy Balance Assessment
type: MaterialOmissionPrivacyBalanceDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board applied a materiality analysis to Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure, weighing his privacy right against the obligation to avoid material omissions, ultimately finding the omission did not rise to an ethics violation given the employer's knowledge of his unlicensed status.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: Material Omission Privacy Balance Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his privacy interest in non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures was overridden by the materiality of that information to XYZ Consultants' decision-making context, balancing his personal right to privacy against his obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid omitting material facts.
sourcetext: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
temporalscope: During pre-employment representations to XYZ Consultants
textreferences: However, the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
textreferences: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.257768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
type: PEExamDisclosureEngineerIntern
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'education': 'BS in Engineering, MS in Management', 'experience': 'Five years', 'license_status': 'Engineer Intern (State Y), not yet PE licensed', 'exam_history': 'Three failed PE exam attempts', 'state_of_application': 'State X', 'state_of_current_license': 'State Y', 'board_restriction': 'State X licensing board requires additional experience and new references after third failure before re-examination'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Intern A applied for and accepted a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his unlicensed status during the interview but did not volunteer his prior two failed PE exam attempts; after starting work, disclosed a third failed attempt and the resulting state board restrictions on re-examination.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:27.100560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:27.100560+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee_of', 'target': 'XYZ Consultants'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'XYZ Consultants Supervisor'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks
textreferences: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
textreferences: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.021295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Materiality Self-Assessment
type: PEExamFailureDisclosureMaterialityAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A failed to assess or act on the materiality of his prior exam failures in the context of a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, instead representing only that he intended to take the exam 'in the coming weeks.'
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his prior PE exam failures constituted material information given XYZ Consultants' explicit 90-day licensure requirement, and upon recognizing their materiality, to disclose them proactively during the interview.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
temporalscope: During the interview with XYZ Consultants
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.028247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure
type: PEExamFailureNon-DisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time of hiring through the Board's analysis; persists until disclosure is made or employment is resolved
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
stateclass: PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure State
subject: Engineer Intern A's employment relationship with XYZ Consultants
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case; ongoing at time of Board review
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam
textreferences: disclosure arguably was not ethically required
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A's decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures when accepting employment with XYZ Consultants conditioned on achieving licensure within 90 days
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.024681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment
type: PEExamFailureDisclosureMaterialityAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A applied for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his unlicensed status but did not volunteer two prior exam failures. The Board assessed whether the omission was material given the employer's known context.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his two prior PE exam failures constituted a material fact given XYZ Consultants' known decision-making context — specifically the 90-day licensure condition — and the Board found that while disclosure would have been prudent, the omission did not rise to an ethics violation because XYZ Consultants offered employment knowing he had not yet passed the exam.
sourcetext: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
temporalscope: During pre-employment interview and application process
textreferences: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
textreferences: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.257492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Disclosure
type: Post-HireLicensureImpedimentPromptDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern A needed the capability to promptly and completely disclose to XYZ Consultants that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed restrictions on his re-examination eligibility, including the full scope of those restrictions
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure obligations following his third PE exam failure and board-imposed re-examination restrictions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The obligation identified for Engineer Intern A to notify XYZ Consultants promptly upon learning of his third failure and board-imposed restrictions, and to disclose the full scope of those restrictions rather than minimizing them
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: failure to disclose does come with a downside
textreferences: Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement
textreferences: failure to disclose does come with a downside
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.259482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Post-Hire Third Failure Disclosure
type: Post-HireLicensureImpedimentPromptDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern A needed the capability to promptly and completely disclose his third PE exam failure and the full scope of the State X board-imposed re-examination restrictions to XYZ Consultants
casecontext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A disclosed his third exam failure and the board's additional requirements for re-examination eligibility
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Intern A disclosed the third failure and board restrictions to his supervisor approximately one month after starting work, though the completeness and timeliness of the disclosure relative to when results were released is relevant
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:30:58.991279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:30:58.991279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.028581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Post-Hire Third Failure Timely Notification
type: Post-HireLicensureImpedimentTimelyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: One month after starting work, Engineer Intern A received PE exam results showing a third failure and learned of board-imposed additional requirements. He disclosed this to his supervisor upon learning of the results.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Timely Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A was obligated to notify XYZ Consultants promptly upon learning that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed additional requirements before he could re-sit the examination.
sourcetext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of PE exam results, approximately one month after starting work
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.027298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Post-Third-Failure Board Bar Prompt Disclosure Obligation
type: Post-HireLicensureImpedimentPromptDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's third PE exam failure triggered a State X licensing board rule requiring additional experience hours and new professional references before re-examination eligibility, materially extending his licensure timeline beyond the 90-day condition of his employment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon learning that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board imposed additional prerequisites before re-examination eligibility, Engineer Intern A was constrained to promptly and completely disclose both the failure and the full scope of the regulatory bar to XYZ Consultants, not merely the fact of the most recent failure.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case 20-1; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3, III.2
sourcetext: failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm
temporalscope: Immediately upon learning of the third exam failure and the board-imposed re-examination bar
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam
textreferences: failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm
textreferences: privacy considerations are not the whole story. The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Post-Third-Failure Prompt Disclosure Constraint Instance
type: Post-HireLicensureImpedimentPromptDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A disclosed the third failure approximately one month after starting work; the disclosure included the board restriction, but the timing and completeness of disclosure relative to when results were received is ethically significant
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern A was constrained to promptly and completely disclose to XYZ Consultants both the fact of his third PE exam failure and the full scope of the State X board-imposed re-examination restriction upon learning of the results, without delay or minimization.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3 (honest representation); faithful agent duty
sourcetext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of third PE exam results, approximately one month after hire
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.029526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Pre-Hire PE Failure Non-Disclosure
type: PEExamFailureNon-DisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time of the interview through the post-hire disclosure of the third failure result
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask
stateclass: PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure State
subject: Engineer Intern A's omission of two prior PE exam failures during the XYZ Consultants interview
terminatedby: Engineer Intern A disclosed to his supervisor one month after starting work that his third attempt had been unsuccessful, implicitly revealing the prior failure history
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A attended the interview and stated an intention to take the PE exam without disclosing two prior failed attempts
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.021660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Pre-Hire PE Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment
type: PEExamFailureNon-DisclosureMaterialityThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A applied for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, having failed the PE exam twice, without disclosing those failures during the interview.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures during the XYZ Consultants interview did not constitute an ethical violation because XYZ Consultants offered the position with full knowledge that he had not yet passed the PE exam, and the omitted failure history was not outcome-determinative given what the employer already knew — tipping toward the BER 97-11 scenario rather than the BER 03-6 scenario.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 20-1; BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
temporalscope: Pre-employment interview and hiring process at XYZ Consultants
textreferences: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
textreferences: The facts do not suggest any deception on behalf of Engineer Intern A, but rather an appropriate, planned, confident path toward satisfying the job requirement
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
textreferences: it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Pre-Interview PE Exam Attempt Non-Disclosure
type: Pre-EmploymentPEExamAttemptHistoryDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A had made multiple prior attempts to pass the PE exam before the interview with XYZ Consultants, but did not disclose this history while representing an intention to take the exam 'in the coming weeks.'
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: Pre-Employment PE Exam Attempt History Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A was obligated to disclose his prior PE examination failures to XYZ Consultants during the interview, given that the advertised position required PE licensure within 90 days and his prior failures were material to the employer's assessment of whether he could satisfy that condition.
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
temporalscope: At the time of the interview with XYZ Consultants
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.027155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Pre-Interview PE Failure Non-Disclosure Permissibility
type: PEExamFailureNon-DisclosureMaterialityThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A had failed the PE exam twice before the interview but did not disclose this; XYZ Consultants did not ask; the employer knew he was unlicensed and offered the position with a 90-day licensure condition
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern A was not automatically obligated to volunteer his two prior PE exam failures during the XYZ Consultants interview because XYZ Consultants already knew he was unlicensed and did not specifically inquire about prior attempts — the materiality threshold for mandatory disclosure was not met under BER Case 20-1 analysis.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 20-1
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
temporalscope: At the time of the XYZ Consultants interview, prior to offer acceptance
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.029002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Privacy Right Material Omission Balance
type: PrivacyRightMaterialOmissionBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures was assessed against the materiality standard given XYZ Consultants' full knowledge of his unlicensed status.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Intern A's privacy interest in non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures was bounded by the prohibition against omitting material facts — requiring assessment of whether the two prior failures crossed the threshold from legitimately private to materially outcome-determinative given XYZ Consultants' existing knowledge that he was not yet licensed.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 20-1; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3
sourcetext: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
temporalscope: Pre-employment interview and hiring process at XYZ Consultants
textreferences: privacy considerations are not the whole story. The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
textreferences: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Privacy vs Material Omission Balancing
type: PrivacyRightvsMaterialOmissionObligationBalancingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Privacy Right vs Material Omission Obligation Balancing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern A needed the capability to balance his privacy interest in non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures against his professional obligation to avoid material omissions, correctly determining that the balance tipped toward permissible non-disclosure given XYZ Consultants' knowledge that he had not yet passed the PE exam
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures during the interview with XYZ Consultants
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's finding that non-disclosure was arguably not ethically required because XYZ Consultants offered the position knowing Engineer Intern A had not yet passed the PE exam, implicitly accepting his current licensure status
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
textreferences: disclosure arguably was not ethically required
textreferences: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.258229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Privacy vs Material Omission Tension
type: PrivacyRightvs.MaterialOmissionTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From hiring through Board's ethical analysis
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact'
stateclass: Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
subject: Engineer Intern A's ethical position regarding non-disclosure of prior exam failures
terminatedby: Board's determination that disclosure was prudent but not ethically required in this case
textreferences: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact'
textreferences: the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11
textreferences: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful'
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants at time of hire
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.024871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Prudent Disclosure Foregone Vulnerability
type: PrudentDisclosureForegoneEmploymentVulnerabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of Engineer Intern A's third exam failure through the Board's analysis; ongoing
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm
stateclass: Prudent Disclosure Foregone Employment Vulnerability State
subject: Engineer Intern A's professional and relational position with XYZ Consultants following third PE exam failure
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case; ongoing vulnerability at time of Board review
textreferences: Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place. But if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally
textreferences: failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm
textreferences: the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A's failure to pass the PE exam on the third attempt, materializing the risk that the non-disclosed prior failures had created
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.025610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Prudential Disclosure Relational Self-Protection
type: PrudentialPre-EmploymentDisclosureRelationalSelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A did not disclose prior exam failures before accepting employment. After failing a third time and facing board-imposed restrictions, he was in a 'very shaky position' with the firm. The Board noted that voluntary disclosure would have placed him in a stronger position.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer Intern A
obligationclass: Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Self-Protection Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Intern A, while not ethically required to disclose his two prior PE exam failures, would have been in a significantly stronger professional and relational position with XYZ Consultants had he voluntarily disclosed those failures before accepting employment, because disclosure would have allowed the employer to make an informed offer and would have protected Engineer Intern A from the amplified consequences of non-disclosure when the licensure condition was not met.
sourcetext: However, failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
temporalscope: During pre-employment interview and at the time of accepting the employment offer
textreferences: Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place. But if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally, with the employer at a time when the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified.
textreferences: However, failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.257630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Prudential Non-Disclosure Relational Vulnerability
type: PrudentialPre-EmploymentDisclosureRelationalRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's permissible non-disclosure of prior exam failures left him professionally and relationally exposed when his third failure triggered a board-imposed re-examination bar, amplifying the consequences of potential employment termination.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: Although Engineer Intern A was not ethically required to disclose his two prior PE exam failures, his choice not to disclose created a foreseeable relational vulnerability — placing him in a significantly weaker professional and relational position with XYZ Consultants when his third failure and board-imposed re-examination bar materialized, compared to the position he would have occupied had XYZ Consultants hired him with full knowledge of his exam history.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:51.177657+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case 20-1; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
temporalscope: From the point of hire through the post-third-failure disclosure to XYZ Consultants
textreferences: Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place. But if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally, with the employer at a time when the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified.
textreferences: failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Prudential Relational Consequence Foresight Deficit
type: PrudentialPre-DisclosureRelationalConsequenceForesightCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prudential Pre-Disclosure Relational Consequence Foresight Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Intern A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to foresee that voluntary disclosure of prior exam failures — if accepted by XYZ Consultants — would have placed him in a significantly stronger professional and relational position when his third exam attempt subsequently failed, compared to the weakened position resulting from non-disclosure followed by failure
casecontext: Engineer Intern A's pre-employment decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures, which left him in a weakened position when his third attempt also failed
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The BER's observation that Engineer Intern A was in a 'very shaky position' with the firm following his third failure, and that disclosure accepted by the employer would have left him 'in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally'
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Intern A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
textreferences: Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place. But if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally
textreferences: The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.258642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Repeated Exam Failure Regulatory Bar
type: RepeatedExamFailureRegulatoryBarState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the third exam failure through the Board's analysis; ongoing
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: State licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:25:29.369957+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A failed the PE exam for the third time and was informed by the state board that he would need to obtain additional experience, new references, and take additional coursework before being allowed to sit for the exam again
stateclass: Repeated Exam Failure Regulatory Bar State
subject: Engineer Intern A's path to PE licensure following three exam failures
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case; ongoing at time of Board review
textreferences: Engineer Intern A failed the PE exam for the third time and was informed by the state board that he would need to obtain additional experience, new references, and take additional coursework before being allowed to sit for the exam again
textreferences: Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A's failure of the PE exam for the third time, triggering state board prerequisites for re-examination
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.025940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Third Failure Regulatory Bar
type: RepeatedExamFailureRegulatoryBarState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the release of the third PE exam failure results onward, persisting until Engineer Intern A satisfies the board's additional prerequisites
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: State X licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
stateclass: Repeated Exam Failure Regulatory Bar State
subject: Engineer Intern A's post-third-failure status under State X licensing board rules requiring additional experience and references before re-examination
terminatedby: Satisfaction of board-imposed additional experience and reference requirements, enabling re-examination eligibility
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A's third unsuccessful attempt at the PE exam, triggering State X licensing board's additional prerequisites for re-examination eligibility
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.021883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A Unlicensed in PE-Required Role
type: InternProfessionalFormationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the start of employment through resolution of the licensure barrier
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.72
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y
stateclass: Intern Professional Formation State
subject: Engineer Intern A's status as an unlicensed intern now employed in a role that required PE licensure within 90 days, facing an extended and uncertain path to licensure
terminatedby: Engineer Intern A obtains PE licensure or employment arrangement is modified
textreferences: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y
textreferences: a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A began employment at XYZ Consultants in a role requiring PE licensure within 90 days while not yet licensed
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.022239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A starts work before 90-day PE licensure deadline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A starts work before third PE exam result disclosure to supervisor
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A's planned third PE exam attempt overlaps 90-day PE licensure window post-hire
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A's relocation to State X after job interview with XYZ Consultants
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A's relocation to State X meets Engineer Intern A starts work
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A's statement of intent to take PE exam during job interview with XYZ Consultants
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineer Intern A's two prior PE exam failures before job interview with XYZ Consultants
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Engineering-Licensure-Law-State-X
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State X Legislature / Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State X Engineering Licensure Statute
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
textreferences: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
textreferences: with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
usedby: XYZ Consultants in setting hiring requirements; Engineer Intern A in understanding licensure obligations
usedincontext: Defines the legal requirement for PE licensure in State X and establishes the legal framework within which XYZ Consultants' 90-day licensure requirement and Engineer Intern A's obligations must be understood.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.020758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern A Post-Hire
type: FaithfulAgentNotificationObligationforProjectSuccessRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Consultants employment relationship and project staffing plans dependent on Engineer Intern A's PE licensure
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: As an employee of XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A bore a faithful agent obligation to advise his employer of the risk that the PE licensure condition of his employment could not be met within the stated 90-day timeline — a risk that materialized when his third exam attempt failed and the licensing board imposed additional requirements
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent relationship between an employee and employer requires the employee to keep the employer informed of material risks to the conditions under which the employment was established; Engineer Intern A's disclosure of the third failure and the licensing board's additional requirements fulfilled this obligation at the post-hire stage
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent notification obligation was ultimately fulfilled through the post-hire disclosure, but the principle also supports the argument that the obligation arose earlier — at the pre-employment stage — when Engineer Intern A knew he was about to sit for a third attempt on an exam he had already failed twice
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.026646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Formative Mentorship Integrity Invoked By XYZ Consultants Supervisor
type: FormativeProfessionalMentorshipIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Consultants supervisor's response to Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure of exam failure
balancingwith: Post-Hire Material Qualification Change Notification Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The supervisor at XYZ Consultants, upon learning of Engineer Intern A's third exam failure and the licensing board's additional requirements, faces a formative mentorship moment: how the supervisor responds — whether with punitive action, constructive guidance, or collaborative problem-solving — will shape Engineer Intern A's understanding of professional integrity and the consequences of omission in professional representations
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The supervisor's response to the disclosure is not merely a personnel management decision but a formative professional ethics lesson; the supervisor has an obligation to address both the immediate staffing problem and the underlying ethical issue of the pre-employment omission in a manner that promotes Engineer Intern A's professional development
invokedby: XYZ Consultants Supervisor Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
principleclass: Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
tensionresolution: The formative mentorship principle supports a response that acknowledges the ethical significance of the pre-employment omission while also recognizing that Engineer Intern A's prompt post-hire disclosure demonstrated good faith
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.026968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Hired Without Asking About Exam History
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Hired Without Asking About Exam History (Action 3) → State X Additional Requirements Triggered (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Honesty In Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer Intern A Pre-Employment
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Consultants interview and hiring process
balancingwith: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: By presenting himself as intending to take the PE exam 'in the coming weeks' without disclosing that this would be his third attempt and that two prior failures had already occurred, Engineer Intern A created an impression of being straightforwardly 'on track' for licensure that was materially incomplete and potentially misleading
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends beyond avoiding outright false statements to avoiding the creation of misleading impressions through selective disclosure; presenting oneself as about to take the PE exam without disclosing a history of two prior failures creates a misleadingly optimistic picture of one's licensure trajectory
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
tensionresolution: The principle of honesty in professional representations supports finding that Engineer Intern A's partial disclosure was ethically deficient, even though he made no affirmatively false statement
textreferences: At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.026142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Honesty Standard Applied to Engineer Intern A Pre-Employment Representations
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Pre-employment representations to XYZ Consultants regarding PE licensure trajectory
balancingwith: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board assessed whether Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures violated the honesty standard for professional representations, finding that the facts did not suggest deception but rather a planned, confident path toward licensure — distinguishing the case from affirmative misrepresentation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The honesty standard for professional representations prohibits lying, falsifying, and misrepresenting qualifications, but does not automatically require volunteering all potentially relevant adverse history; the line is drawn at affirmative deception and material misrepresentation by omission
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before.
tensionresolution: The Board found no violation of the honesty standard because the facts showed a planned path toward qualification rather than deceptive concealment of a known disqualifying deficiency, paralleling the BER 19-1 finding for the autism non-disclosure
textreferences: Most likely Engineer Intern A felt that passage of the PE exam on the third attempt was imminent
textreferences: The facts do not suggest any deception on behalf of Engineer Intern A, but rather an appropriate, planned, confident path toward satisfying the job requirement, namely, PE licensure within 90 days of the date of hire
textreferences: similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.256769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

I.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

III.1.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Job Offer Extended
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Licensure Integrity Invoked In XYZ Consultants Hiring Context
type: LicensureIntegrityandPublicProtectionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Consultants staffing and supervision obligations for engineering work performed by Engineer Intern A
balancingwith: Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The 90-day PE licensure requirement in XYZ Consultants' job advertisement reflects the broader principle that engineering positions requiring PE oversight must be filled by licensed engineers or by candidates genuinely on track for licensure, so that the public protection function of the licensure system is not undermined by indefinite deferral of the licensure condition
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The licensure integrity principle undergirds the 90-day requirement and explains why the employer's reliance on Engineer Intern A being 'on track' was not merely a contractual expectation but an ethical one — the firm has an obligation to ensure that its engineering work is performed under appropriate PE oversight, which requires that the licensure condition be genuinely achievable
invokedby: XYZ Consultants Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
invokedby: XYZ Consultants Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
principleclass: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
sourcetext: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
tensionresolution: The licensure integrity principle supports both the employer's right to rely on the candidate's representations about licensure trajectory and the candidate's obligation to make those representations complete and accurate
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.026796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

NCEES-Model-Rules
type: NCEESModelRules
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: NCEES Model Rules
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y
textreferences: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y
textreferences: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure
usedby: State licensing boards in State X and State Y; Engineer Intern A subject to these rules
usedincontext: Provides the model framework for state licensing board rules governing professional conduct, including standards for honest representation of qualifications and licensure status that State X and State Y licensing boards may have adopted.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.021075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license
usedby: Engineer Intern A; XYZ Consultants; ethics reviewers
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer Intern A's obligation to honestly represent his qualifications and PE exam history to XYZ Consultants during the hiring process; grounds duties of honesty and non-deception in professional dealings.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.022422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation Invoked as Counterweight to Privacy
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Omission of adverse professional history
appliedto: Professional representations in employment and client-service contexts
balancingwith: Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board invoked the engineer's obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid statements omitting material facts as the counterweight to the privacy right, establishing that privacy does not license material misrepresentation by omission in professional representations
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity and truthfulness obligations operate as a ceiling on the privacy right: the engineer may withhold personal information but may not allow that withholding to create a materially false impression of their professional qualifications or standing
invokedby: Engineer A BER 97-11 Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
tensionresolution: The Board treats objectivity and truthfulness as the limiting principle on privacy: privacy protects against compelled disclosure of non-material personal facts, but does not protect against the obligation to avoid material misrepresentation by omission
textreferences: an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts
textreferences: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.256615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Omission Materiality Analysis Applied to Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failures
type: OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board applied a materiality analysis to Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures, weighing whether those failures constituted a material fact whose omission undermined XYZ Consultants' ability to make an informed hiring decision, ultimately finding the case 'finely nuanced' but below the compelled-disclosure threshold
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The materiality of the omitted exam failures is reduced by the fact that XYZ Consultants knowingly hired an unlicensed intern, that two of three licensing requirements (education and experience) were satisfactory, and that the facts suggest a planned path toward licensure rather than deceptive concealment of a disqualifying deficiency
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
sourcetext: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
tensionresolution: The Board found the omission did not cross the materiality threshold for compelled disclosure, distinguishing the case from BER 03-6 (adjudicated wrongdoing) while acknowledging it was a closer call than BER 19-1 (personal medical condition)
textreferences: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11
textreferences: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact'
textreferences: The facts do not suggest any deception on behalf of Engineer Intern A, but rather an appropriate, planned, confident path toward satisfying the job requirement
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam
textreferences: of the three requirements for professional licensing (examination, education, and experience), Engineer Intern A's education and experience qualifications are quite acceptable
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.256452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Omission Materiality Threshold Invoked In Engineer Intern A Interview
type: OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Pre-employment interview disclosure at XYZ Consultants
balancingwith: Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethical weight of Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose prior exam attempts depends on whether that information was material — i.e., whether it would have affected XYZ Consultants' hiring decision — given that the position explicitly required PE licensure within 90 days and the intern had already failed twice and was about to sit for a third attempt
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Prior exam failure history is material to a hiring decision conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days because it directly bears on the probability that the candidate can meet the stated condition; the materiality threshold is therefore met, making the omission ethically significant rather than merely imprudent
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
tensionresolution: Because the information was material — it would have altered the employer's assessment of whether the candidate was 'on track' — the omission crosses the materiality threshold and generates an ethical disclosure obligation even absent a direct inquiry
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.024517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Omitted Prior Exam Failures at Interview
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.260935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Omitted Prior Exam Failures at Interview (Action 2) → Hired Without Asking About Exam History (Action 3) → Job Offer Extended (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

PE-Exam-Attempt-Disclosure-Standard
type: PEExaminationAttemptDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Derived from NSPE Code of Ethics honesty provisions and qualification representation norms
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: PE Examination Attempt Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: PE Examination Attempt Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
textreferences: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
usedby: Engineer Intern A during interview; XYZ Consultants in hiring decision
usedincontext: Addresses the specific ethical question of whether Engineer Intern A had an affirmative duty to disclose his two prior failed PE exam attempts to XYZ Consultants, given that the position required PE licensure within 90 days and the employer's decision was predicated on the assumption of imminent licensure.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.020471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

PE-Examination-Attempt-Disclosure-Standard
type: PEExaminationAttemptDisclosureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived standard)
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: PE Examination Attempt Disclosure Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:24:28.099074+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: PE Examination Attempt Disclosure Standard
sourcetext: the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
textreferences: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
textreferences: it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required
textreferences: the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer Intern A's conduct during the hiring process
usedincontext: The normative standard under analysis in this case — governing whether Engineer Intern A had an ethical obligation to disclose two prior failed PE exam attempts to prospective employer XYZ Consultants; the Board concludes disclosure was prudent but not ethically required in this instance
version: Derived from NSPE BER analysis
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.023096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

PE Exam Failed Twice
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Personal Privacy Right Invoked in BER 19-1 Autism Disclosure Analysis
type: PersonalPrivacyRightinProfessionalSelf-Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Pre-employment disclosure decision regarding autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held in BER 19-1 that Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis to a prospective employer was ethically permissible because the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of personal medical conditions, and Engineer A retained a personal right to privacy
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A personal medical condition, even one potentially relevant to an employer's preferences, falls within the engineer's protected personal privacy sphere and does not constitute a material professional qualification fact requiring disclosure under the NSPE Code
invokedby: Engineer A BER 19-1 PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
sourcetext: In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer. The engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his obtaining employment, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved in favor of privacy, finding no deception, falsification, misrepresentation, or compromise of honesty standards — the engineer simply did not volunteer a personal fact he was not obligated to disclose
textreferences: Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer
textreferences: The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure
textreferences: The engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his obtaining employment, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome
textreferences: the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.255870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Post-Hire Material Qualification Change Notification Invoked By Engineer Intern A
type: Post-HireMaterialQualificationChangeNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Consultants employment relationship and PE licensure timeline condition
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: One month after starting work, Engineer Intern A disclosed to his supervisor that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references before he could re-sit — a disclosure that was ethically required but came after the employment relationship had already commenced under false pretenses
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure, while ethically required and to his credit, reveals that the employment was already underway before the employer learned of the material qualification gap; the principle requires that such disclosures be made promptly upon learning of the material change, which in this case occurred when exam results were released
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Post-Hire Material Qualification Change Notification Obligation
sourcetext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
tensionresolution: Engineer Intern A fulfilled the post-hire notification obligation by disclosing the failure promptly upon learning of the results; the more significant ethical question concerns the pre-employment omission that preceded this disclosure
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.026485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Invoked By Engineer Intern A
type: Pre-EmploymentQualificationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Consultants job application and interview process
balancingwith: Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation
balancingwith: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Intern A, applying for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his current unlicensed status but did not volunteer that he had already failed the PE exam twice (and was about to sit for a third attempt), information that was directly material to the employer's assessment of whether he was 'on track' to meet the 90-day requirement
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:27:41.529690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The case turns on whether Engineer Intern A's silence about prior exam failures constituted an ethically culpable omission. The principle requires that when a candidate knows that a position has an explicit licensure timeline and that their own exam history creates material uncertainty about meeting that timeline, the candidate bears an affirmative duty to disclose that history even absent a direct question — because the employer's reliance on the candidate being 'on track' is a foundational condition of the offer
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
tensionresolution: The fact that XYZ Consultants did not ask mitigates but does not eliminate Engineer Intern A's disclosure obligation; the materiality of prior failures to a 90-day PE requirement is sufficiently clear that a reasonable candidate should have volunteered the information
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.024355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Privacy-Objectivity Balance Invoked in Present Case Analysis
type: PersonalPrivacyRightinProfessionalSelf-Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures during pre-employment process at XYZ Consultants
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Objectivity
balancingwith: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledged that Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures implicates both a privacy right and the competing obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid omitting material facts, requiring a balancing analysis rather than automatic resolution in favor of either privacy or disclosure
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The privacy right does not operate as an absolute shield; it must be balanced against objectivity and truthfulness obligations, with the balance tipping based on whether the omitted fact constitutes a material misrepresentation in context
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
sourcetext: The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.' The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
tensionresolution: The Board found the facts 'finely nuanced' but tipping toward the BER 97-11 (non-required disclosure) outcome rather than the BER 03-6 (required disclosure) outcome, because the exam failures were not an adjudicated wrongdoing and XYZ Consultants knowingly hired an unlicensed intern
textreferences: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11
textreferences: disclosure arguably was not ethically required
textreferences: privacy considerations are not the whole story
textreferences: the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact'
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.256069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Professional-Competence-Standard
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering norms
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
usedby: Engineer Intern A in assessing his readiness for the role; XYZ Consultants in evaluating fitness for the position
usedincontext: Provides normative grounding for the expectation that Engineer Intern A should practice within his demonstrated competence and be transparent about limitations — including the limitation that he has not yet passed the PE exam — when accepting a position contingent on licensure.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.020894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection Invoked for Engineer Intern A
type: PrudentialDisclosureasRelationalSelf-Protection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants during pre-employment process
balancingwith: Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
balancingwith: Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board observed that although Engineer Intern A was not ethically required to disclose prior PE exam failures, his failure to do so placed him in a 'very shaky position' with the firm after a third failure, whereas proactive disclosure would have produced a stronger professional and relational standing with the employer
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:34:16.217711+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prudential case for disclosure is strongest when the undisclosed fact is one that will inevitably surface if circumstances go adversely, and when the relational consequences of discovery-after-concealment are significantly more damaging than the relational consequences of proactive disclosure
invokedby: Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
principleclass: Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
sourcetext: However, failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
tensionresolution: The Board does not resolve this as an ethical tension but as a practical professional wisdom observation: the engineer who discloses proactively, even when not required, negotiates from a position of mutual knowledge and preserves relational trust that becomes critical when adverse outcomes materialize
textreferences: Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place
textreferences: The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement
textreferences: failure to disclose does come with a downside
textreferences: if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally, with the employer at a time when the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified
textreferences: it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.256246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Qualification-Representation-Standard
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering norms; NSPE Code of Ethics
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
usedby: Engineer Intern A in job application and interview; XYZ Consultants in evaluating candidate qualifications
usedincontext: Governs Engineer Intern A's obligation to accurately represent his qualifications, licensure status, and PE exam history when applying for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days; addresses whether omission of prior exam failures constitutes misrepresentation.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.020316
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer Intern A not to have mentioned at the interview his two previous failures at passing the PE exam if he was not asked that question by XYZ Consultants?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Given that XYZ Consultants made PE licensure within 90 days a condition of hire, did Engineer Intern A's silence about two prior failures constitute an implicit misrepresentation that he was realistically on track to satisfy that condition?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: At what point before or during employment did Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure cross from a permissible omission into a breach of his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Consultants — specifically, was there an affirmative duty to disclose the prior failures once he accepted the offer and the 90-day licensure clock began running?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the Board's shared-responsibility framing — acknowledging XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about exam history — inappropriately dilute Engineer Intern A's individual ethical accountability, and should an engineer's honesty obligations be independent of whether the employer asks the right questions?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: How does the analogical precedent from BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation on an employment application, bear on whether Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam failures — a material qualification fact — should have been volunteered without being asked?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Personal Privacy Right — as recognized in BER 19-1 regarding Engineer A's autism non-disclosure — conflict with the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation when the undisclosed information is not a medical condition but a directly job-relevant qualification history that materially affects an employer's hiring decision?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.536979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Omission Materiality Threshold principle — which could excuse silence on facts not directly solicited — conflict with the Honesty Standard Applied to Pre-Employment Representations when the omitted facts (two prior PE exam failures) are precisely the facts that would have altered the employer's hiring decision?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Employer Hiring Due Diligence principle — which places responsibility on XYZ Consultants to ask probing questions — conflict with the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle — which places an affirmative honesty burden on Engineer Intern A — and if both principles apply simultaneously, how should their respective weights be calibrated?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection principle — which counsels Engineer Intern A to volunteer information in his own long-term relational interest — conflict with the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation — which frames disclosure as a duty owed to the employer rather than a self-interested calculation — and does conflating these two rationales weaken the ethical force of the disclosure norm?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer Intern A fulfill his duty of honesty toward XYZ Consultants by remaining silent about two prior PE exam failures when the hiring condition explicitly required licensure within 90 days, regardless of whether the question was directly asked?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, did Engineer Intern A's silence about his prior exam failures produce a net harm to XYZ Consultants, the profession, and himself that outweighed any short-term benefit of securing employment, given that the non-disclosure ultimately resulted in a materially undermined trust relationship and an unfillable licensure condition?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: Applying virtue ethics, did Engineer Intern A demonstrate the professional integrity and practical wisdom expected of an engineer-in-training when he chose not to volunteer information about two prior exam failures that were directly material to a hiring condition he had accepted, even if that silence was technically permissible under a strict question-and-answer standard?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's prohibition on material misrepresentation by omission impose an affirmative duty on Engineer Intern A to disclose prior exam failures when those failures are directly relevant to a stated hiring condition, such that the absence of an explicit question from XYZ Consultants does not relieve him of that duty?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer Intern A had voluntarily disclosed his two prior PE exam failures at the interview, would XYZ Consultants have extended the job offer, and would that outcome have better served both parties' interests and the integrity of the profession compared to the trust breakdown that actually occurred?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if XYZ Consultants had directly asked Engineer Intern A at the interview whether he had previously attempted the PE exam — would the Board's ethical analysis have shifted from 'imprudent but not unethical' to a finding of clear ethical violation, and what does that potential shift reveal about the adequacy of a question-dependent disclosure standard in professional engineering hiring?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer Intern A had disclosed his two prior failures at the interview but XYZ Consultants had hired him anyway with a modified or extended licensure timeline, would the subsequent third failure and the State X regulatory bar have constituted a different kind of ethical problem — one focused on post-hire faithful agent obligations rather than pre-hire omission — and how would the Board's analysis have changed accordingly?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer Intern A had passed the PE exam on his third attempt after being hired — would his pre-hire non-disclosure of two prior failures have remained ethically imprudent, or would the successful outcome have retroactively neutralized the materiality of the omission, and what does this scenario reveal about whether the Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' standard is outcome-dependent in a way that undermines consistent ethical guidance?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.537640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.539984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T10:01:18.540250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

State-X-Licensing-Board-Rules
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: State X Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State X Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:16.848382+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
textreferences: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
usedby: Engineer Intern A subject to these rules; XYZ Consultants affected by the licensure timeline constraint
usedincontext: Establishes the regulatory consequence that after a third PE exam failure, State X requires additional experience and new references before a candidate may sit for the exam again — a material constraint on Engineer Intern A's ability to meet the 90-day licensure requirement.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.020624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

State X Additional Requirements Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

State X Board Re-Examination Eligibility Regulatory Bar on Engineer Intern A
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board-imposed re-examination bar is the central regulatory constraint in this case — it transforms what might have been a recoverable exam failure into a structural impediment to the employment condition, and triggers the disclosure obligations analyzed throughout the case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer Intern A
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: State X licensing board rules imposed a hard regulatory constraint on Engineer Intern A's ability to re-sit the PE examination following his third failure, requiring him to accumulate additional experience and obtain new professional references before becoming eligible — making satisfaction of the 90-day licensure condition legally impossible.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State X Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
temporalscope: Following the third PE exam failure, for an indeterminate period until additional experience and reference requirements are met
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.030180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

Third PE Exam Failed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
type: EngineeringFirmHiringAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'firm_type': 'Engineering consulting firm', 'state': 'State X', 'pe_requirement': 'PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days of hire', 'due_diligence_gap': 'Did not ask about prior PE exam attempts'}
caseinvolvement: XYZ Consultants advertised a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, interviewed Engineer Intern A, did not inquire about prior exam attempts, and offered the position with the expectation that the candidate was on track to obtain a PE license.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:27.100560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:27.100560+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer Intern A'}
relationships: {'type': 'hiring_party_for', 'target': 'Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
textreferences: XYZ Consultants did not ask
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.024164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence
type: LicensureConditionHiringDueDiligenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Capability
capabilitystatement: XYZ Consultants needed the capability to conduct reasonable due diligence during the hiring process by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior PE examination attempt history given the explicit 90-day licensure condition in the job advertisement
casecontext: XYZ Consultants advertised a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days but did not inquire about the candidate's prior examination history during the interview
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: XYZ Consultants failed to ask about prior exam attempts during the interview, resulting in hiring a candidate who could not realistically satisfy the licensure condition within the required timeframe
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:30:58.991279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:30:58.991279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.028726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence Deficit
type: LicensureConditionHiringDueDiligenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Capability
capabilitystatement: XYZ Consultants failed to exercise the capability to conduct reasonable pre-hire due diligence by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior examination attempt history, despite advertising a position with an explicit 90-day PE licensure condition
casecontext: XYZ Consultants' hiring process for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's implicit recognition that XYZ Consultants offered the position knowing Engineer Intern A had not yet passed the PE exam without inquiring further about his examination history
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
textreferences: it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.259213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence Inquiry
type: EmployerLicensureConditionDueDiligenceInquiryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Consultants advertised a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, interviewed Engineer Intern A who disclosed he was not yet licensed, but did not inquire about prior exam attempts before extending an offer.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: XYZ Consultants (Hiring Authority)
obligationclass: Employer Licensure Condition Due Diligence Inquiry Obligation
obligationstatement: XYZ Consultants was obligated to conduct reasonable due diligence during the hiring process by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior PE examination attempts, given that the advertised position explicitly required PE licensure within 90 days of hire.
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants did not ask.
temporalscope: During the interview and hiring process
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.027754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Failure
type: EmployerLicensureConditionHiringDueDiligenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Consultants did not ask about prior exam attempts despite the 90-day licensure condition being a material hiring requirement; this procedural gap contributed to the employer's uninformed reliance on Engineer Intern A's unverified licensure prospects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: XYZ Consultants
constraintclass: Employer Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Constraint
constraintstatement: XYZ Consultants was constrained to conduct reasonable due diligence by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam attempt history before extending a licensure-conditioned offer, given that the advertised position explicitly required PE licensure within 90 days.
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:31:22.618262+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional hiring standards
sourcetext: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
temporalscope: During the interview and hiring process, prior to offer extension
textreferences: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
textreferences: The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.029876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Licensure Expectation Defeated
type: EmployerLicensureExpectationDefeatedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer Intern A disclosed the third failure result to his supervisor, persisting until the employment arrangement is renegotiated or resolved
affectedparties: Engineer Intern A
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants
affectedparties: XYZ Consultants supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:30.937741+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license
stateclass: Employer Licensure Expectation Defeated State
subject: XYZ Consultants' foundational hiring expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license within 90 days, now materially undermined
terminatedby: Renegotiation of employment terms, Engineer Intern A obtaining licensure, or termination of employment
textreferences: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license
textreferences: a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
textreferences: his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
textreferences: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
triggeringevent: Engineer Intern A's disclosure one month post-hire that his third PE exam attempt failed and that the licensing board requires additional prerequisites before re-examination
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.022082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Supervisor Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
type: EngineeringFirmPELicensingSupervisor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'firm': 'XYZ Consultants', 'state': 'State X', 'disclosure_received': 'Third PE exam failure and state board re-examination restrictions'}
caseinvolvement: The supervisor at XYZ Consultants received Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that state board restrictions now applied to his re-examination eligibility, triggering obligations to assess continued employment and compliance.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:23:27.100560+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:23:27.100560+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'XYZ Consultants'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer Intern A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
sourcetext: Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
textreferences: Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.021471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Supervisor Mentorship Response Obligation
type: FormativeMentorshipEthicalModelingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Formative Mentorship Ethical Modeling Capability
capabilitystatement: The supervising engineer at XYZ Consultants needed the capability to respond to Engineer Intern A's disclosure of his third PE exam failure and board-imposed restrictions by providing constructive mentorship and modeling ethical professional conduct rather than responding punitively
casecontext: XYZ Consultants supervisor's response to Engineer Intern A's disclosure of third PE exam failure and board-imposed re-examination restrictions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The obligation identified for the supervising engineer to respond constructively by providing mentorship, identifying pathways to eventual licensure, and advising on employment implications
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:38:42.772631+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: XYZ Consultants Supervisor
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the ethics of an engineer's employment lie squarely within the Board's purview, and the Board has considered such matters in past cases
textreferences: the ethics of an engineer's employment lie squarely within the Board's purview, and the Board has considered such matters in past cases
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.259346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

XYZ Consultants Supervisor Mentorship Response to Third Failure
type: SupervisoryResponsetoLicensureConditionFailureMentorshipObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The supervisor at XYZ Consultants received Engineer Intern A's disclosure that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed additional requirements before he could re-sit the exam.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 130
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 130
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T09:29:31.184320+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: XYZ Consultants Supervisor (Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor)
obligationclass: Supervisory Response to Licensure Condition Failure Mentorship Obligation
obligationstatement: The supervising engineer at XYZ Consultants was obligated to respond to Engineer Intern A's disclosure of his third PE exam failure and board-imposed restrictions in a manner that balanced the firm's business interests with honest communication about employment consequences and appropriate professional guidance.
sourcetext: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure, approximately one month after hire
textreferences: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
textreferences: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
wasattributedto: Case 130 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.027921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

contractor's license revocation of Engineer F (BER 03-6) before Engineer F's application to engineering firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

ethics complaint filed by Client C against Engineer A (BER 97-11) during Engineer A rendering services to Client B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

job interview with XYZ Consultants before job offer from XYZ Consultants
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

job offer from XYZ Consultants before Engineer Intern A starts work
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

third PE exam result disclosure to supervisor during 90-day PE licensure window
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction

third PE exam sitting before third PE exam result disclosure to supervisor
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-26T09:45:01.261659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 130 Extraction