ProEthica Case 132 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.012346
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER_Case_00-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 00-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: In determining Engineer A's ethical obligation under these circumstances, the Board decided that Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning to distinguish levels of required response based on imminence and scope of danger
usedincontext: Cited as a primary precedent illustrating how the Board addresses public safety dilemmas involving bridge structural failure; establishes the 'full-bore campaign' standard for imminent, widespread public danger requiring escalation to multiple authorities
version: 2000
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER_Case_07-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 07-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 07-10, the Board was faced with a case in which Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: In BER Case 07-10, the Board was faced with a case in which Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: The BER concluded that in BER Case 07-10, the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning to calibrate the current case's required response level
usedincontext: Cited as a precedent establishing the proportionality principle in public safety escalation obligations — where danger is significant but not imminent or widespread, written notification to the owner and relevant authority is the appropriate standard, with graduated escalation if no action is taken
version: 2007
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER_Case_89-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
textreferences: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 analysis, referenced in the current case discussion
usedincontext: Cited as part of a cluster of earlier precedents establishing the foundational principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present, as this would constitute an abrogation of fundamental professional responsibility
version: 1989
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER_Case_90-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 90-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
textreferences: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 analysis, referenced in the current case discussion
usedincontext: Cited as part of a cluster of earlier precedents establishing the foundational principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present, as this would constitute an abrogation of fundamental professional responsibility
version: 1990
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER_Case_92-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 92-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
textreferences: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 analysis, referenced in the current case discussion
usedincontext: Cited as part of a cluster of earlier precedents establishing the foundational principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present; also previously identified as a standalone precedent in the ontology
version: 1992
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER Case No. 00-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER Case No. 89-7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER Case No. 90-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

BER Case No. 92-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Bracing Recommendation to Owners
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Bridge Structural Hazard - BER Case 00-5
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From June 2000 telephone call from bridge inspector through replacement project completion
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public using bridge
affectedparties: Log truck and tanker operators
affectedparties: Residents requiring 10-mile detour
affectedparties: School bus passengers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.98
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: 280-foot concrete deck on wood piles bridge with rotten pilings, 30 feet above stream
terminatedby: Bridge replacement (not described as completed within case facts)
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge.
textreferences: Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings.
textreferences: Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
triggeringevent: Bridge inspector telephone call reporting large number of rotten pilings requiring closure
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.017468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Building Owners Safety Recommendation Recipients
type: BuildingOwnerSafetyRecommendationRecipient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'building_condition': 'Structurally unstable due to recent modifications', 'safety_recommendation_received': 'Brace building to prevent collapse', 'certificate_of_occupancy': 'Issued following structural modifications'}
caseinvolvement: Owners of the structurally unstable building who received Engineer A's recommendation to brace the building to prevent collapse; had made recent structural modifications that caused roof sag and wall lean
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'advised_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulated_by', 'target': 'County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority Individual'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
sourcetext: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Building_Structural_Safety_Investigation_Standard_FireCase
type: BuildingStructuralSafetyInvestigationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering community consensus
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
textreferences: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
usedby: Engineer A upon observing structural instability during fire investigation
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's professional obligations upon discovering structural instability during a fire origin-and-cause investigation, including the duty to assess collapse risk, notify the client, and contact relevant authorities
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.012824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Building_Structural_Safety_Investigation_Standard_Instance
type: BuildingStructuralSafetyInvestigationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard (Professional Norm)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse
textreferences: Engineer A was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
usedby: Engineer A and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the nature and severity of the structural safety concern
usedincontext: Implicitly invoked as the professional standard governing Engineer A's assessment of structural collapse risk from the removal of columns and footings supporting the barn roof under severe snow loads, and the obligations triggered by that assessment
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.016443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Call to County Building Official
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Call to County Building Official → County Official Call Unanswered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Case 132 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

CausalLink_Bracing Recommendation to Owne
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

CausalLink_Call to County Building Offici
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

CausalLink_Decision Not to Further Escala
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

CausalLink_Scope Expansion to Structural
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

CausalLink_Verbal Notification to Client
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Invalidated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Concern - BER Case 07-10
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuedDespiteStructuralDeficiencyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of certificate of occupancy through Engineer A's notification efforts
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Occupants of structure
affectedparties: Town building authority
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued.
stateclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
subject: Town's issuance of certificate of occupancy for barn extension that Engineer A believes compromises structural integrity
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued.
triggeringevent: Town approved Jones's structural modifications and issued certificate of occupancy despite removal of load-bearing columns and footings
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.018730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuedDespiteStructuralDeficiencyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of certificate of occupancy through Engineer A's notification of the county building official
affectedparties: Building owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
stateclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
subject: County building official issued certificate of occupancy following construction modifications that Engineer A concludes caused structural deficiency
terminatedby: Pending — county building official has not responded; structural concern remains unresolved
textreferences: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
triggeringevent: County building official issues certificate of occupancy following construction modifications
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.013830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Certificate_of_Occupancy_Regulatory_Framework_FireCase
type: CertificateofOccupancyRegulatoryFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: County building authority
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
textreferences: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
usedby: Engineer A and county building official in assessing post-issuance safety concerns
usedincontext: Provides the legal and regulatory context for understanding how the building received a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications, and the obligations of the county building official when structural safety concerns are raised post-issuance
version: County-level regulatory framework
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.012967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Certificate_of_Occupancy_Regulatory_Framework_Instance
type: CertificateofOccupancyRegulatoryFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Local/state building authority
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework (Local/State Building Authority)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued
textreferences: contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations after a certificate of occupancy was issued for a potentially unsafe structural modification
usedincontext: Referenced as the regulatory backdrop against which Engineer A's post-issuance safety concern obligations are evaluated; the certificate of occupancy had been issued for the modified barn structure, raising the question of whether and how an engineer can trigger re-investigation after official approval
version: Applicable jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.016134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Client B Building Safety Investigation Client
type: BuildingSafetyInvestigationClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'engagement_type': 'Fire investigation client', 'financial_interest': 'Financial loss from fire'}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer A to investigate fire origin and cause; received notification of structural instability from Engineer A
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Building Safety Investigation Client
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.017168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Client Relationship - Engineer A and Client B
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active at time of structural safety concern identification
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Professional relationship between Engineer A and Client B regarding building with structural safety concern
terminatedby: Not described as terminated within case facts
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
triggeringevent: Engineer A engaged by Client B in professional capacity
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.020092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Collapse Risk Remains Unmitigated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting in writing the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency with jurisdiction, advising them of the structural deficiencies.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board concluded that Engineer A's obligation did not end with the unanswered phone call to the county building official. Engineer A was required to escalate further by working collaboratively with Client B and by contacting in writing the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency with jurisdiction to advise them of the structural deficiencies. This reflects the Board's application of the persistent escalation obligation, the written documentation requirement, and the public welfare paramount principle, calibrated to the non-imminent but real structural collapse risk present in the current case.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 204
answers question4: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A was obligated to escalate in writing to the county building official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction, the Board's conclusion implicitly establishes that a single unanswered phone call is categorically insufficient to discharge the public safety escalation duty under the NSPE Code. The verbal-only notification to the county building official, while a necessary first step, created no durable record of the hazard, imposed no institutional accountability on the receiving agency, and left the collapse risk entirely unmitigated once the call went unreturned. The Written Documentation Requirement is not merely a procedural formality in this context — it is the mechanism by which Engineer A's safety concern acquires regulatory traction. Without a written record, the county building official's non-response effectively erases Engineer A's notification from the administrative record, leaving the building's certificate of occupancy unchallenged and the public unprotected. Engineer A's obligation to follow up in writing was therefore not a heightened or extraordinary duty triggered only by imminent collapse risk; it was the baseline minimum required whenever a verbal notification fails to produce a response from the responsible authority. The BER Case 07-10 precedent, in which the Board criticized verbal-only communication with a town supervisor as insufficient, directly supports this conclusion and applies with equal or greater force here, where the county building official did not even acknowledge receipt of the safety concern.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should have worked with Client B while also escalating to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities reveals an important but underexplored tension: the faithful agent duty to Client B does not disappear once the public safety escalation duty is triggered, but it does become subordinate to it. Engineer A's obligation to collaborate with Client B in pursuing resolution is not merely a courtesy — it reflects the recognition that Client B, as the party who retained Engineer A and who has a direct financial and legal stake in the building, may be a constructive partner in compelling the county building official to act. However, if Client B were to object to further disclosure or escalation — for example, to avoid regulatory scrutiny, liability exposure, or remediation costs — that objection cannot ethically constrain Engineer A's escalation duty. The Public Welfare Paramount principle, codified in Code Section I.1, establishes that the safety of the public is not a negotiable interest that clients may waive on the public's behalf. The Confidentiality Non-Applicability principle further confirms that client confidentiality does not bar disclosure of structural hazards to regulatory authorities. Consequently, while Engineer A should pursue resolution collaboratively with Client B as a first preference, the ethical architecture of the NSPE Code requires that Engineer A proceed with written escalation to supervisory authorities and alternative agencies regardless of Client B's preferences if Client B declines to participate or actively objects. The Board's framing of 'working with Client B' should therefore be understood as describing a preferred process, not a precondition for escalation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.2.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion implicitly resolves, but does not explicitly address, the question of whether Engineer A's dual role as forensic fire investigator and licensed structural engineer expands the scope of professional duty beyond the four corners of the fire investigation engagement. The Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense principle, supported by the BER Case 89-7 and BER Case 90-5 precedents, establishes that an engineer cannot invoke a contractually narrow engagement scope as a shield against the obligation to act on incidentally discovered safety hazards. Engineer A's structural engineering licensure and competence were not suspended by the terms of the fire investigation contract; they remained active professional credentials carrying independent ethical obligations. When Engineer A observed and assessed the structural instability — performing a preliminary structural investigation, identifying insufficient lateral restraint, and concluding that collapse was a danger — Engineer A was not acting as a layperson who happened to notice something alarming. Engineer A was exercising licensed structural engineering judgment, and that exercise activated the full suite of public safety obligations that attach to structural engineering practice under the NSPE Code. This means that the epistemic qualification of the assessment as 'preliminary' does not diminish the escalation obligation; rather, it may independently require Engineer A to recommend or undertake a more definitive structural evaluation before or alongside the escalation campaign, so that the regulatory authorities contacted have actionable technical information rather than a tentative concern. The Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation and the Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation together establish that Engineer A's structural expertise, once engaged, cannot be selectively invoked for the purpose of identifying a hazard while simultaneously being disclaimed for the purpose of …
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 104
answers question4: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should have escalated to the fire marshal or other agencies with jurisdiction — not merely to the county building official's supervisor — reflects a graduated, multi-agency escalation model that the current case shares with BER Case 00-5 and BER Case 07-10, but with important calibration differences that the Board did not fully articulate. In BER Case 00-5, the imminent and widespread collapse risk of a bridge carrying live traffic justified full-bore escalation including physical closure measures and contact with multiple governmental layers simultaneously. In BER Case 07-10, the non-imminent barn collapse risk under severe snow loads justified a more measured, deadline-conditioned escalation: notify the new owner first, then escalate to the town supervisor, then to county and state building officials if the deadline passed without action. The current case sits between these poles: the collapse risk is non-imminent, as in BER 07-10, but the county building official has already issued a certificate of occupancy that implicitly endorses the building's safety, and that official has failed to respond to Engineer A's notification at all. The certificate of occupancy creates a heightened escalation obligation relative to BER 07-10, because the official's prior action has affirmatively misrepresented the building's safety to the public and to future occupants. The non-response compounds this by foreclosing the possibility that the official will self-correct. Consequently, the appropriate escalation model for the current case is more aggressive than the deadline-conditioned approach of BER 07-10 but does not require the simultaneous multi-agency blitz of BER 00-5. Engineer A should have moved promptly — not after an extended waiting period — to written notification of the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, while continuing to work with Client B, because the combination of a misleading certificate of occupancy …
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond the unresponsive county building official does not diminish simply because Client B objects to further disclosure. The faithful agent duty owed to Client B is a real and important professional obligation, but it is explicitly subordinate to the paramount duty to protect public safety under NSPE Code Section I.1. Once Engineer A has notified Client B of the structural deficiency — satisfying the faithful agent notification obligation — and the county building official has failed to respond, the public welfare paramount principle takes over as the controlling ethical norm. Client B's preference to avoid costly remediation or regulatory scrutiny cannot serve as a veto over Engineer A's independent duty to the public. The threshold at which public welfare overrides the faithful agent duty is crossed when: (1) a credible structural hazard has been identified, (2) the client has been informed, and (3) the designated regulatory authority has failed to act. All three conditions are satisfied here. At that point, Engineer A's obligation to escalate in writing to the county official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction is not merely permissible — it is ethically required, regardless of Client B's preferences.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595418
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.2.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The preliminary nature of Engineer A's structural assessment does affect the manner in which escalation should be framed, but it does not raise the threshold at which escalation becomes obligatory. Engineer A's professional judgment — even when preliminary — that the building is at risk of collapse due to insufficient lateral restraint is sufficient to trigger the disclosure and escalation obligations under the NSPE Code. A preliminary assessment by a licensed structural engineer is not equivalent to uninformed speculation; it reflects professional competence applied to observed conditions. However, the epistemic qualification of 'preliminary' does impose a corresponding obligation of epistemic honesty: Engineer A should communicate the preliminary nature of the assessment clearly in any written escalation, recommend that a more definitive structural evaluation be conducted, and avoid overstating certainty. The preliminary characterization thus shapes the content and tone of the escalation rather than its necessity. Waiting for a definitive evaluation before notifying authorities would be ethically impermissible if the building remained occupied during that interval, because the risk — though non-imminent — is real and the certificate of occupancy creates a false assurance of safety.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The county building official's prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications does not diminish Engineer A's escalation obligation — it heightens it. The certificate of occupancy creates a legally and socially authoritative signal to occupants and the public that the building is safe. When Engineer A's professional assessment contradicts that signal, the gap between official assurance and actual structural condition represents a compounded public safety risk: occupants are not merely unwarned, they are affirmatively misled by the certificate. This makes the county building official's non-response to Engineer A's phone call particularly consequential, because the official's silence perpetuates a false safety assurance. Far from suggesting that the matter has already been reviewed and resolved, the certificate of occupancy issued after the very modifications that Engineer A identifies as the source of structural deficiency raises a serious question about whether the official's prior inspection was adequate. Engineer A's escalation obligation is therefore not weakened by deference to the official's prior judgment; rather, the official's apparent failure to detect the deficiency is itself a reason to escalate to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The building owners' refusal to implement the recommended bracing independently triggers an escalation obligation, separate from and in addition to the obligation triggered by the county building official's non-response. When Engineer A recommends a specific corrective action — bracing — to prevent a known structural collapse risk, and the owners decline to act, the structural hazard remains unmitigated. At that point, Engineer A has exhausted the remedies available through direct advisory action to the parties most immediately responsible for the building. The combination of owner inaction and official non-response leaves the public exposed to a risk that Engineer A has identified and that no responsible party has addressed. Under NSPE Code Section I.1 and the persistent escalation obligation, Engineer A's duty to hold public welfare paramount requires escalation to supervisory authorities, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction. The owners' refusal is not merely a private business decision; it is a decision that affects the safety of anyone who enters or occupies the building, and Engineer A cannot ethically treat it as the end of the matter.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between the faithful agent notification obligation to Client B and the public welfare paramount principle is real but resolvable through sequencing rather than subordination. Engineer A satisfies the faithful agent obligation by notifying Client B first and promptly — which the facts confirm was done. Once that notification is complete, the faithful agent obligation does not extend to suppressing or deferring further escalation at Client B's request when public safety is at stake. The NSPE Code's structure is hierarchical: Section I.1 places public welfare paramount, and the faithful agent duty in Section III is explicitly bounded by that hierarchy. Client B's potential preference to avoid regulatory scrutiny or remediation costs is a legitimate business interest, but it is not an interest that Engineer A is ethically permitted to protect at the expense of public safety. The resolution of the tension is therefore: notify Client B first, document that notification, and then proceed with escalation to regulatory authorities regardless of Client B's preferences, because the faithful agent duty does not include the duty to suppress safety-critical information from public authorities.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The tension between proportional escalation for non-imminent risks and the persistent escalation obligation triggered by the county building official's non-response is resolved by recognizing that proportionality governs the form and sequence of escalation, not its ultimate necessity. For a non-imminent risk, proportionality counsels against immediately deploying the full-bore, multi-agency campaign appropriate for an imminent collapse — as seen in BER Case 00-5 — and instead favors a graduated, deadline-conditioned approach modeled on BER Case 07-10. However, proportionality does not permit Engineer A to stop escalating simply because the risk is non-imminent. The county building official's failure to return the phone call is precisely the trigger that advances Engineer A to the next step in the graduated escalation sequence: a written notification to the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction. The proportionality principle shapes the pace and formality of escalation; the persistent escalation obligation ensures that non-response at one level does not terminate the process. The two principles are therefore complementary rather than conflicting when properly sequenced.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.2.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The scope-of-work limitation of Engineer A's fire investigation engagement cannot serve as a complete defense against the obligation to disclose and act on the structural deficiency, but it does shape the extent of the structural analysis Engineer A is obligated to perform. The multi-credential competence activation obligation means that Engineer A's status as a licensed structural engineer — not merely a fire investigator — activates a professional duty to assess and disclose structural hazards that come within Engineer A's observation and competence during the engagement. However, this activation does not automatically require Engineer A to conduct a full, fee-bearing structural engineering investigation beyond the scope of the fire investigation contract. What it does require is: (1) disclosure of the observed structural concern to Client B and relevant authorities, (2) a preliminary assessment sufficient to characterize the nature and approximate severity of the risk, and (3) a recommendation that a comprehensive structural evaluation be performed by a qualified engineer. Engineer A is not ethically required to perform that comprehensive evaluation without a separate engagement, but Engineer A is ethically prohibited from treating the scope limitation as a reason to remain silent about a hazard that professional competence has identified.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The written documentation requirement and the proportional escalation obligation for non-imminent risks are not genuinely in conflict — they operate on different dimensions of the same duty. Proportionality addresses the intensity and urgency of escalation; the written documentation requirement addresses the form that escalation must take to be effective and verifiable. BER Case 07-10 demonstrates precisely why verbal-only notification is insufficient even for non-imminent risks: Engineer A in that case made only a verbal communication to the town supervisor, and the Board found that obligation unfulfilled because there was no written record and no confirmed follow-up. The lesson is that written documentation is not a disproportionate formality — it is the minimum standard of care for any safety notification that must survive the test of non-response or denial. A written escalation to the county building official's supervisor or the fire marshal is not disproportionate to a non-imminent structural collapse risk; it is the appropriate and proportionate response to a situation where a verbal phone call has already been ignored. The written documentation requirement therefore reinforces rather than conflicts with proportional escalation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fulfill the categorical duty to protect public safety by stopping at a single unanswered phone call. The NSPE Code's mandate to hold public welfare paramount functions as a near-categorical rule: it does not permit an engineer to discharge the duty through a single good-faith gesture that produces no protective outcome. Kant's categorical imperative, applied to professional engineering ethics, would ask whether a maxim of 'notify once verbally and then stop' could be universalized without undermining the entire system of public safety protection that engineering licensure is designed to provide. It cannot. If every engineer treated a single unanswered phone call as sufficient discharge of the public safety duty, the duty would be rendered meaningless in precisely the cases where it matters most — those where responsible authorities are unresponsive. The non-imminent nature of the collapse risk affects the urgency and form of the duty's discharge, but it does not convert the categorical obligation into a discretionary one. Engineer A's duty to escalate in writing to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities is unconditional once the initial notification has been ignored.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's decision to limit escalation to a single unanswered phone call produced a clearly suboptimal outcome for public safety. The building retained a certificate of occupancy, the structural deficiency remained unaddressed, and the collapse risk was unmitigated. The counterfactual outcomes of a written multi-agency escalation campaign are meaningfully better: written notification to the county official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or state building authorities would have created an official record, imposed accountability on regulatory actors, and substantially increased the probability that the structural deficiency would be formally reviewed and remediated. The costs of that escalation — primarily Engineer A's time and the potential for regulatory friction with Client B — are modest compared to the benefit of reducing the probability of structural collapse and the associated harm to occupants and the public. A consequentialist calculus therefore strongly supports the Board's conclusion that Engineer A was obligated to pursue written escalation. The non-imminent characterization of the risk reduces the urgency of the escalation but does not change the direction of the cost-benefit analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's actions — recommending bracing to the owners and making a single phone call — reflect the beginning of professional virtue but fall short of its full expression. A virtuous professional engineer, characterized by integrity, moral courage, and genuine commitment to public welfare, would not treat an unanswered phone call as the end of the matter when a structural hazard remains unaddressed. Virtue ethics asks not merely what rules require but what a person of excellent professional character would do. Such a person would recognize that the phone call's failure to produce a response is not a discharge of responsibility but a signal that more persistent and formal action is required. The virtue of moral courage is particularly relevant: escalating in writing to supervisory authorities, potentially over the objection of Client B, requires a willingness to accept professional friction in service of a higher obligation. Engineer A's preliminary assessment and initial notifications demonstrate competence and good faith, but genuine professional virtue requires persistent, documented advocacy until a responsible authority acknowledges and commits to addressing the structural deficiency.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.2.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: Engineer A's dual role as forensic fire investigator and licensed structural engineer creates a non-waivable duty to act on incidentally discovered structural hazards, and the scope-of-work limitation of the fire investigation contract cannot serve as a moral or professional defense for inaction. The NSPE Code's competence provision in Section I.2 and the public welfare paramount principle in Section I.1 operate independently of contractual scope definitions. When Engineer A's structural engineering competence is activated by the observation of a structural deficiency — regardless of the engagement's primary purpose — the professional duty to disclose and escalate attaches. The faithful agent obligation to Client B is satisfied by prompt notification, but it does not extend to suppressing the structural concern from regulatory authorities. The interaction between the scope limitation and the faithful agent duty is therefore asymmetric: the scope limitation constrains what Engineer A is contractually obligated to investigate and report to Client B as a deliverable, but it does not constrain what Engineer A is ethically obligated to disclose to public authorities as a licensed professional. The dual-role context thus expands rather than contracts Engineer A's disclosure obligations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer A had immediately followed the unanswered phone call with written notification to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, the probability of the certificate of occupancy being suspended and the collapse risk being mitigated before reoccupancy would have been substantially higher. Written notification creates an official record that demands a documented response, imposes accountability on supervisory officials, and activates the fire marshal's independent authority to inspect and act. Whether the certificate would definitively have been suspended cannot be determined with certainty, but the absence of written escalation removes the most effective mechanism available to Engineer A for compelling regulatory action. The absence of that written escalation does constitute a breach of Engineer A's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, regardless of the non-imminent nature of the risk. The non-imminent characterization affects the urgency and form of escalation but does not eliminate the obligation. An engineer who identifies a structural hazard, notifies the client, makes a single unanswered phone call, and then stops has not discharged the duty to hold public welfare paramount — particularly when the building retains a certificate of occupancy that affirmatively misleads occupants about its safety.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If the county building official had returned Engineer A's call but refused to revoke the certificate of occupancy, citing the prior inspection as sufficient, Engineer A's ethical obligations would have required escalation to the fire marshal, state building authority, or other agencies with jurisdiction. A responsive but dismissive official does not terminate Engineer A's escalation obligation any more than a non-responsive one does. The BER 07-10 precedent of deadline-conditioned escalation is instructive: in that case, the Board held that Engineer A should have given the town supervisor a reasonable deadline to act and, upon non-compliance, escalated to the county and state building officials. The same logic applies here: if the county building official affirmatively refuses to act, Engineer A should document that refusal in writing, advise the official of the structural basis for the concern, and then escalate to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities. The official's prior inspection and certificate of occupancy do not constitute a final and unreviewable safety determination; they are administrative actions that can be revisited when new professional evidence of structural deficiency is presented by a licensed engineer.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Client B had explicitly instructed Engineer A not to contact any government authorities about the structural deficiency, invoking confidentiality, that instruction would not have relieved Engineer A of the obligation to notify the county building official and escalate further. The NSPE Code's confidentiality provisions do not extend to suppressing information about structural hazards that endanger public safety. The confidentiality non-applicability principle is well-established in engineering ethics: an engineer cannot be bound by client confidentiality to remain silent about conditions that pose a risk to the life, health, or safety of the public. A client instruction to withhold safety-critical information from regulatory authorities is not a legitimate exercise of the client's authority over the professional relationship — it is a request that Engineer A breach a higher-order professional duty. Engineer A would be obligated to inform Client B that the instruction cannot be followed, to document that communication, and to proceed with notification to the county building official and, upon non-response, to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities. The public welfare paramount principle overrides any client-imposed confidentiality constraint in a case involving structural collapse risk.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If the structural instability Engineer A discovered had posed an imminent rather than non-imminent collapse risk, the BER 00-5 precedent of full-bore, multi-agency escalation and physical closure measures would have applied directly. In BER 00-5, the Board held that Engineer A was obligated to erect physical barricades, close the bridge to traffic, resist public pressure to reopen it, and escalate through multiple governmental channels simultaneously — all because the collapse risk was imminent and the consequences catastrophic. In the current case, the non-imminent characterization does represent a meaningful ethical distinction, but it is a distinction in urgency and form rather than in the underlying duty. The underlying duty — to hold public welfare paramount and to escalate until a responsible authority acts — is identical in both cases. What changes is the pace, the sequence, and the proportionality of the escalation response. An imminent risk demands immediate, simultaneous, multi-agency action and physical intervention if necessary. A non-imminent risk demands graduated, documented, deadline-conditioned escalation through the regulatory hierarchy. Both demands are ethically obligatory; neither permits Engineer A to stop at a single unanswered phone call.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.595167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved in this case through a sequenced, not competing, framework: Engineer A's duty to Client B was satisfied first by immediate verbal notification of the structural deficiency, but that satisfaction did not exhaust Engineer A's obligations. Once Client B was informed and the county building official failed to respond, the Public Welfare Paramount principle assumed unambiguous priority. The case teaches that faithful agency and public welfare are not symmetrically weighted duties — client loyalty operates within a ceiling defined by public safety, and when a non-imminent but real collapse risk remains unmitigated after client notification and an unanswered regulatory call, the public welfare obligation displaces any residual deference to client preference about further escalation. Client B's potential preference against further disclosure cannot lawfully or ethically cap Engineer A's escalation duty once the regulatory channel has gone silent.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The interaction between the Risk Threshold Calibration principle and the Persistent Escalation Obligation reveals that proportionality governs the form and pace of escalation, not whether escalation occurs at all. Because the collapse risk was non-imminent rather than imminent, Engineer A was not required to pursue the full-bore, multi-agency, physical-closure campaign demanded by BER Case 00-5's bridge scenario. However, proportionality does not mean passivity: the Persistent Escalation Obligation, activated by the county building official's non-response, required Engineer A to advance to the next available authority — the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or any other agency with jurisdiction — in writing. The case thus teaches that the imminent/non-imminent distinction calibrates the intensity and urgency of escalation but does not create a threshold below which escalation becomes optional. A graduated, deadline-conditioned written escalation chain is the proportionate response to a non-imminent risk combined with regulatory non-response, and stopping at a single unanswered phone call falls below even the proportionate minimum.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 102
answers question4: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.2.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between the Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense principle and the Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation establishes a compounding duty structure: when an engineer possesses structural expertise and exercises it — even incidentally during a fire investigation — the contractual scope of the engagement cannot insulate that engineer from the ethical consequences of what the structural expertise reveals. Engineer A's preliminary structural assessment, however labeled, constituted a professional judgment by a licensed structural engineer. That judgment activated both the Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation and the Written Documentation Requirement simultaneously. The case further teaches that the Written Documentation Requirement does not conflict with proportional escalation for non-imminent risks; rather, written documentation is precisely the proportionate tool for non-imminent risks because it creates an accountable record that survives the informality of a phone call, ensures the hazard is not lost in bureaucratic non-response, and satisfies the engineer's duty under NSPE Code Section II.1.a to notify when judgment is effectively overruled by inaction. The preliminary nature of the structural assessment may appropriately qualify the epistemic confidence expressed in written notifications, but it does not reduce the obligation to make them.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability Applied in Current Case
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Building Safety Investigation Client
appliedto: County Building Official (Current Case)
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Contractual obligations to client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's disclosure of structural instability to the county building official — without Client B's explicit authorization — did not violate confidentiality obligations because the disclosure served the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and the structural hazard constituted an apparent danger to the public interest
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Confidentiality obligations do not bar disclosure of apparent public dangers to regulatory authorities; such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code
invokedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides confidentiality when an apparent danger to the public interest is identified
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.029321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability Invoked By Engineer A Disclosure To County Official
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Disclosure of structural hazard to county building official
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful agent obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's disclosure of the structural instability to the county building official was not barred by client confidentiality obligations, because the disclosure served the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and did not constitute disclosure of protected confidential business information
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client confidentiality did not bar Engineer A from notifying the county building official of the structural hazard; the public danger exception to confidentiality applies because the disclosure was to a regulatory authority for public protection purposes
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
tensionresolution: Public danger disclosure exception overrides client confidentiality; Engineer A correctly disclosed the structural hazard to the county building official without requiring client consent
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.021702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority Individual
type: CountyBuildingOfficialCertificateofOccupancyAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority': 'Certificate of occupancy issuance', 'jurisdiction': 'County building code enforcement', 'response': "Did not return Engineer A's phone call"}
caseinvolvement: Issued certificate of occupancy following structural modifications to the building; failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural hazard
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'issued_certificate_for', 'target': 'Building Owners Safety Recommendation Recipients'}
relationships: {'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
sourcetext: the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
textreferences: Engineer A also calls the county building official
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority Non-Response Structural Hazard
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuingAuthoritySafetyRe-NotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county building official issued a certificate of occupancy following construction modifications that Engineer A determined may have caused structural instability; the county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call reporting the hazard.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: County Building Official
obligationclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: The county building official, having issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications and having been notified of a structural hazard by Engineer A, was obligated to respond to Engineer A's notification and take appropriate regulatory action to address the identified structural safety concern.
sourcetext: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer A's phone call reporting the structural hazard
textreferences: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.023498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

County Building Official (Current Case)
type: CountyBuildingOfficialCertificateofOccupancyAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Public regulatory official', 'action': "Did not return Engineer A's phone call"}
caseinvolvement: County building official who issued a certificate of occupancy for the building under investigation and failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural safety concerns, triggering the engineer's obligation to escalate to supervisors and other authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Supervisor of County Building Official'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
sourcetext: contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
textreferences: contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.017301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

County Building Official Non-Response - Current Case
type: CountyBuildingOfficialNon-ResponsetoSafetyNotificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's contact with county building official through obligation to escalate to supervisor and other agencies
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: County official's supervisor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Fire marshal
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
stateclass: County Building Official Non-Response to Safety Notification State
subject: County building official's failure to respond to Engineer A's safety notification
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts — escalation to supervisor and fire marshal identified as required next step
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction.
triggeringevent: Engineer A contacted county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.019601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

County Building Official Non-Response to Safety Notification
type: CountyBuildingOfficialNon-ResponsetoSafetyNotificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's phone call to county building official through any eventual response or escalation
affectedparties: Building owners
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
stateclass: County Building Official Non-Response to Safety Notification State
subject: County building official fails to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural safety concern
terminatedby: County building official responds, or Engineer A escalates to supervisor or other authority
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
triggeringevent: Engineer A calls county building official to report structural instability; official does not return the call
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.014176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

County Commission decision before preliminary site investigation studies
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

County Official Call Unanswered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: After the county building official fails to return Engineer A's phone call regarding a non-imminent but real structural collapse risk, what escalation actions does Engineer A's public safety obligation require?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond a single unanswered phone call to the county building official, including the requirement to follow up in writing and contact supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities
option1: Follow up the unanswered phone call with written notification to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, documenting the structural concern, the preliminary assessment findings, and the prior unanswered contact, while continuing to work collaboratively with Client B toward remediation
option2: Send a written follow-up letter to the same county building official reiterating the structural concern and requesting a response within a defined deadline, deferring escalation to supervisory or alternative agencies unless that deadline passes without acknowledgment
option3: Treat the unanswered phone call as sufficient initial discharge of the reporting obligation for a non-imminent risk, document the call in Engineer A's own records, and await further developments — such as owner refusal to brace or building reoccupancy — before escalating further
role label: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: When Client B has been verbally notified of the structural deficiency but may object to further regulatory escalation that could trigger costly remediation or liability, does Engineer A's faithful agent duty constrain the public safety escalation obligation?
focus: The interaction between Engineer A's faithful agent duty to Client B and the public welfare paramount principle when Client B may prefer that Engineer A not escalate further to supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities
option1: Inform Client B that written escalation to supervisory regulatory authorities is professionally required regardless of client preference, document that communication, and proceed with written notification to the county building official's supervisor and fire marshal while inviting Client B to participate constructively in the escalation process
option2: Work collaboratively with Client B to pursue voluntary remediation — including engaging a structural engineer for a definitive evaluation and implementing the recommended bracing — before escalating to supervisory regulatory authorities, treating client collaboration as the preferred first path and regulatory escalation as a subsequent step if collaboration fails
option3: Treat the faithful agent duty as requiring deference to Client B's preferences on further escalation given the non-imminent nature of the risk, limit further action to written documentation of the concern in Engineer A's own records, and advise Client B in writing of the structural risk and the recommendation to engage a structural engineer — without independently contacting supervisory regulatory authorities absent Client B's consent
role label: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Does the preliminary and incidental nature of Engineer A's structural assessment — made during a fire investigation engagement rather than a formal structural engineering engagement — affect the threshold at which disclosure and escalation to regulatory authorities become obligatory?
focus: Whether Engineer A's preliminary structural assessment — made incidentally during a fire investigation engagement — is sufficient to trigger the disclosure and escalation obligations, or whether the epistemic uncertainty of a preliminary finding defers those obligations pending a more definitive evaluation
option1: Disclose the preliminary structural findings in writing to Client B and the county building official immediately, clearly qualifying the assessment as preliminary, recommending that a comprehensive structural evaluation be commissioned, and escalating to supervisory authorities upon the official's non-response — without waiting for a definitive evaluation before initiating disclosure
option2: Recommend to Client B that a separate structural engineering engagement be commissioned to produce a definitive assessment before notifying regulatory authorities, on the grounds that a preliminary finding by an engineer retained for a different scope does not yet constitute a sufficient professional basis for regulatory escalation
option3: Include the structural observations as a noted finding in the fire investigation report delivered to Client B, flagging the concern for Client B's attention and recommending further evaluation, while treating the scope limitation of the fire investigation engagement as precluding independent regulatory notification absent a separate structural engineering retainer
role label: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Does the county building official's prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications that Engineer A identifies as the source of deficiency heighten or diminish Engineer A's obligation to escalate, and does it affect which authorities Engineer A must contact?
focus: The effect of the county building official's prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications on Engineer A's escalation obligation — whether the prior official endorsement heightens, diminishes, or is neutral with respect to the duty to escalate
option1: Escalate promptly in writing to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, explicitly noting that the building retains a certificate of occupancy issued after the modifications Engineer A identifies as structurally deficient, and requesting that the certificate be reviewed and the building re-inspected before continued occupancy
option2: Direct written escalation to the same county building official who issued the certificate of occupancy, providing a written summary of the structural findings and requesting a formal re-inspection, treating the issuing official as the appropriate first-line authority for remedial action before escalating to supervisory bodies
option3: Treat the certificate of occupancy as evidence that the county building official previously reviewed the structural modifications and found them acceptable, and defer further escalation pending a definitive structural engineering evaluation that can rebut the official's prior determination with greater certainty than a preliminary assessment provides
role label: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: When the building owners decline to implement Engineer A's bracing recommendation and the county building official has not responded, does the combination of owner inaction and regulatory non-response independently require Engineer A to escalate to additional authorities, and how does the non-imminent nature of the risk calibrate that obligation?
focus: Engineer A's ongoing obligations when the building owners decline to implement the recommended bracing, and whether that refusal — combined with the county building official's non-response — independently triggers a duty to escalate to additional authorities
option1: Document the owners' refusal to implement bracing in writing, advise the owners in writing of the continued structural risk and their responsibility for it, and immediately escalate in writing to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal — treating the combination of owner refusal and official non-response as exhausting all direct remedies and requiring multi-agency regulatory escalation
option2: Re-engage Client B and the building owners collaboratively to pursue voluntary remediation — including commissioning a definitive structural evaluation and presenting its findings to the owners — before escalating to supervisory regulatory authorities, treating the owners' initial refusal as a starting point for negotiation rather than a final determination
option3: Treat the owners' refusal as a property owner's exercise of authority over their own building in the context of a non-imminent risk, document the refusal and Engineer A's recommendation in writing for Engineer A's own records, and limit further action to a written follow-up to the county building official — without escalating to supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities absent evidence that the risk has become more imminent
role label: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Does the Written Documentation Requirement for safety notifications conflict with the Proportional Escalation Obligation for non-imminent risks, or does written documentation represent the baseline minimum standard of care whenever a verbal notification has been ignored — regardless of the risk's imminence?
focus: Whether the Written Documentation Requirement for safety notifications is the proportionate and minimum-standard tool for non-imminent structural risks, or whether it conflicts with the Proportional Escalation Obligation by imposing a disproportionate formality on a hazard that is real but not immediate
option1: Send written confirmation of the structural concern to the county building official immediately following the unanswered phone call, documenting the preliminary findings, the prior verbal contact, and the request for a response — treating written follow-up as the baseline minimum standard of care whenever a verbal safety notification has been ignored, regardless of the risk's imminence
option2: Prepare a written structural safety memorandum for Engineer A's own records documenting the preliminary findings, the verbal notifications to Client B and the county building official, and the unanswered call — treating internal documentation as sufficient to preserve Engineer A's professional record while deferring external written escalation until a definitive structural evaluation is available
option3: Treat the verbal phone call to the county building official as proportionate to the non-imminent nature of the risk, and limit written documentation to the fire investigation report delivered to Client B — which notes the structural observations as a finding — without separately memorializing the safety concern in a written communication directed to the county building official or other regulatory authorities
role label: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Decision Not to Further Escalate
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Decision Not to Further Escalate → Collapse Risk Remains Unmitigated
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Actionable Bracing Guidance Building Owners
type: ActionableRemedialGuidancetoPropertyOwnerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified structural instability with risk of roof collapse and wall failure; Engineer A recommended to the building owners that they brace the building to prevent collapse.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Actionable Remedial Guidance to Property Owner Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to provide the building owners with specific, actionable remedial guidance — recommending bracing to prevent collapse — rather than merely disclosing the existence of the structural risk, so that the owners had the information necessary to take protective action.
sourcetext: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
temporalscope: Upon identification of structural instability and assessment of collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.022938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Actionable Bracing Guidance Building Owners Individual
type: ActionableStructuralRemediationGuidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Actionable Structural Remediation Guidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to formulate and communicate specific, actionable remedial guidance to the building owners — recommending bracing to prevent collapse — that was proportionate to the assessed non-imminent but real collapse risk and technically sound given the preliminary nature of the investigation.
casecontext: Engineer A provided the building owners with specific actionable guidance (bracing recommendation) as an interim protective measure pending full structural assessment and permanent repair.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recommendation to building owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse, based on preliminary assessment of roof sag, wall lean, and insufficient lateral restraint.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.024913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
type: CrutchPileAdequacyVerificationCollaborativeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A decision was made to install two crutch piles and reopen the bridge with a five-ton limit without follow-up inspection; Engineer A observed significant bridge movement and weight limit violations.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
obligationclass: Crutch Pile Adequacy Verification Collaborative Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the two-crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be structurally adequate, and to report those findings to the supervisor.
sourcetext: Engineer A also should have worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two-crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
temporalscope: Upon observing the crutch pile remediation and weight limit violations
textreferences: Engineer A also should have worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two-crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.030556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation
type: Five-TonLimitStrictEnforcementSupervisorEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The bridge was reopened with a five-ton limit but Engineer A observed log trucks and tankers crossing regularly while school buses went around; Engineer A failed to press for enforcement.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
obligationclass: Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to immediately press the supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit upon observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of the restriction.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
temporalscope: Upon observing weight limit violations by log trucks and tankers
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.030852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint
type: Five-TonWeightLimitStrictEnforcementEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing with significant movement of the bridge, including log trucks and tankers crossing regularly in violation of the five-ton limit, while school buses went around the bridge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to immediately press the supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit upon observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of that restriction, and if that escalation was ineffective, to escalate to state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
temporalscope: Upon observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of the five-ton limit
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and other such authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.033689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Imminent Widespread Bridge Collapse Full-Bore Campaign
type: ImminentWidespreadDangerFull-BoreMulti-AuthorityCampaignObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A 280-foot bridge 30 feet above a stream with rotten pilings was reopened with inadequate crutch pile remediation and no follow-up inspection; weight limit violations were observed; Engineer A failed to pursue full-bore escalation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
obligationclass: Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities given the imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
temporalscope: Upon observing the inadequate remediation, weight limit violations, and significant bridge movement
textreferences: By failing to take this action, Engineer A had ignored his basic professional and ethical obligations.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
textreferences: the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.031007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
type: LocalGovernmentBridgeSafetyEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Local government', 'specialty': 'Bridge/transportation infrastructure'}
caseinvolvement: Local government engineer responsible for a deteriorating bridge who ordered closure, faced public pressure and non-engineer supervisor override, and had obligations to escalate to multiple authorities and report unlicensed bridge inspection practice.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Local Government (BER 00-5)'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm (BER 00-5)'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'County Commission (BER 00-5)'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director (BER 00-5)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A worked for a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damage and the efforts underway to replace the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
textreferences: Engineer A worked for a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.016730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Multi-Precedent Structural Safety Duty Synthesis
type: Multi-PrecedentPublicSafetyDutySynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Precedent Public Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER synthesized BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6 to establish that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety at the core of engineering ethics, and applied that synthesized framework to determine the full-bore escalation obligations.
casecontext: BER reviewed earlier cases 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6 to establish the normative framework for Engineer A's obligations in BER Case 00-5
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: BER synthesis of multiple precedent cases to establish the paramount duty framework applicable to imminent bridge collapse scenario
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
textreferences: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.035263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Resistance Full-Bore Escalation
type: Non-EngineerSafetyOverrideResistanceandEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector (not an engineer) to examine the bridge and decided to install crutch piles and reopen with a five-ton limit without follow-up inspection; Engineer A failed to take the required escalation steps.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
obligationclass: Non-Engineer Safety Override Resistance and Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist the non-engineer public works director's override of the bridge closure and to escalate immediately to supervisors, state/federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
temporalscope: Upon observing the non-engineer override and inadequate remediation
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: By failing to take this action, Engineer A had ignored his basic professional and ethical obligations.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and other such authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.030400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Resistance Full-Bore Escalation Constraint
type: Non-EngineerAuthoritySafetyOverrideResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and install two crutch piles, then reopen the bridge with a five-ton limit — overriding Engineer A's professional safety determination.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from acquiescing to the non-engineer public works director's decision to have a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and install crutch piles, and was required to resist that override by escalating immediately to supervisors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
temporalscope: Following non-engineer public works director's decision to install crutch piles and reopen bridge with five-ton limit
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and other such authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.033555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedSafetyObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as an employee of the local government with specific responsibility for the bridge, was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the imminent bridge collapse risk, including pursuing a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign.
casecontext: Engineer A was a local government employee with specific assigned responsibility for the deteriorating bridge
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that public employment with specific infrastructure responsibility amplified the professional obligation to pursue full-bore escalation
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: in BER Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
textreferences: in BER Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.034849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Non-Subordination Bridge Closure
type: PublicPressureNon-SubordinationofBridgeClosureSafetyDeterminationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A ordered bridge closure due to rotten pilings; a rally was held and a petition with 200 signatures was presented to the County Commission requesting reopening; Engineer A explained the damage and the County Commission supported the closure.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
obligationclass: Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain the bridge closure determination against the petition of 200 signatures and the public rally, and to explain the technical basis for the closure to the County Commission.
sourcetext: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
temporalscope: During the period of organized public pressure for bridge reopening
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damage and the efforts underway to replace the bridge.
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.030263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Non-Subordination Bridge Closure Constraint
type: PublicPressureSafetyDeterminationNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A rally was held and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission, creating public pressure on Engineer A to relax the safety closure determination.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from subordinating the professionally grounded bridge closure determination to the petition of approximately 200 signatures and the public rally requesting reopening of the bridge to limited traffic — the paramount obligation to public safety was non-negotiable regardless of the intensity of public opposition.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
temporalscope: Following public rally and petition to reopen bridge
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.033416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination Reporting
type: UnlicensedEngineeringAssessmentDeterminationandReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer to examine the bridge; the inspector's assessment was used to justify reopening the bridge with crutch piles.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
obligationclass: Unlicensed Engineering Assessment Determination and Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and if so, to report those activities to the state engineering licensure board.
sourcetext: Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
temporalscope: Upon learning that the retired bridge inspector had examined the bridge and that the assessment was used to justify reopening
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.030711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination Reporting Constraint
type: UnlicensedInspectorEngineeringAssessmentReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director engaged a retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer to examine the bridge and make structural recommendations, potentially constituting unlicensed engineering practice.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Unlicensed Inspector Engineering Assessment Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and if so, to report that individual to the state engineering licensure board.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; state engineering practice acts
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
temporalscope: Following non-engineer public works director's engagement of retired bridge inspector
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.033826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice Determination
type: UnlicensedPracticeRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and to report that determination to the state engineering licensure board if warranted.
casecontext: Non-engineer public works director had a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and recommend crutch pile installation without engineering licensure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Assessment of whether a retired non-engineer bridge inspector's structural recommendations crossed the threshold into unlicensed engineering practice
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.034511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation
type: Deadline-ConditionedEscalationtoHigherBuildingAuthorityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but took no action; Engineer A did not set a deadline or escalate to county or state building officials.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
obligationclass: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation to Higher Building Authority Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, if appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period, to again contact the town supervisor in writing with a specific deadline and notice that failure to act would require escalation to county or state building officials.
sourcetext: If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
temporalscope: After a reasonable period following the initial verbal notification to the town supervisor without corrective action
textreferences: If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.031387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A learned of structural modifications to a barn sold to Jones and verbally contacted the town supervisor but did not first notify Jones of the structural concerns.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
obligationclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to first notify the current owner (Jones) of the perceived structural deficiency in the barn before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, so that the owner had the opportunity to take voluntary protective action.
sourcetext: it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
temporalscope: Upon learning of the structural modifications and before or contemporaneously with contacting the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A should have also notified the new owner about the perceived deficiency in writing.
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.031137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
type: Post-SaleSafetyNotifyingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural design', 'relationship_to_property': 'Former owner and original designer'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer who originally designed a barn, sold the property, later learned of structural modifications by the new owner that may create collapse risk under snow loads, and had obligations to notify the new owner and town supervisor in writing and escalate if no action taken.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'notified', 'target': 'Town Supervisor (BER 07-10)'}
relationships: {'type': 'prior_client', 'target': 'Jones (BER 07-10) New Property Owner'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.016871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Proportional Escalation Non-Imminent Barn Collapse
type: ProportionalEscalationCalibrationBetweenImminentandNon-ImminentStructuralRiskObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A learned of structural modifications to a barn that may create collapse risk under snow loads; the risk was significant but not as imminent or widespread as the bridge collapse risk in BER 00-5.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
obligationclass: Proportional Escalation Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the escalation response to the non-imminent but significant nature of the barn structural risk — pursuing a limited but multi-step escalation (notify owner, notify town supervisor in writing, set deadline, escalate to county/state officials if needed) rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
sourcetext: the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
temporalscope: Upon learning of the structural modifications and assessing the risk profile
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
textreferences: the prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction—in writing.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.031524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Record and Follow-Up Confirmation
type: WrittenCommunicationFollow-UpAfterVerbalSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to make a written record of communications with the owner and town supervisor, follow up the verbal communication with written confirmation to the town supervisor restating concerns, and continue to monitor the situation.
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but no action was taken
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that verbal notification to town supervisor was insufficient and required written follow-up confirmation
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns, while continuing to monitor the situation.
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns, while continuing to monitor the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.035055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Record and Follow-Up Confirmation Obligation
type: Post-Verbal-NotificationWrittenStructuralSafetyConfirmationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but took no action; Engineer A did not follow up in writing or make a written record of communications.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
obligationclass: Post-Verbal-Notification Written Structural Safety Confirmation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to make a written record of communications with the owner and town supervisor, follow up the verbal communication with written confirmation to the town supervisor restating the concerns, and continue monitoring the situation.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns, while continuing to monitor the situation.
temporalscope: After verbal notification to the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns, while continuing to monitor the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.031263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification Structural Deficiency
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuingAuthoritySafetyRe-NotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county building official had issued a certificate of occupancy following construction modifications that Engineer A determined may have caused the structural instability; Engineer A called the county building official to report the hazard.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify the county building official — who had issued the certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications — of the newly identified structural safety concern, recognizing that the issuing authority bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use.
sourcetext: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
temporalscope: Upon determination that the structural deficiency arose from post-occupancy-approval modifications
textreferences: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.022548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification Structural Deficiency Individual
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuingAuthoritySafetyRe-NotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the county building official — who had issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications — was the appropriate regulatory party to notify of the newly discovered structural deficiency, and initiated contact with that specific authority.
casecontext: Engineer A learned that the building had been issued a certificate of occupancy following construction modifications, and correctly identified the county building official as the appropriate authority to notify of the structural deficiency.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Calling the county building official upon discovering structural instability in a building that had received a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.024784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion Safety Duty Constraint
type: CertificateofOccupancyNon-PreclusionofEngineerSafetyDutyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county building official had issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications that Engineer A concluded caused structural deficiency — roof sag and outward wall lean — yet Engineer A remained obligated to notify the issuing authority.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: The prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the county building official following structural modifications did not preclude or discharge Engineer A's independent duty to report the subsequently discovered structural safety deficiency to the issuing authority and affected property owners.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of structural deficiency in building with existing certificate of occupancy
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion Safety Duty Fire Investigation
type: CertificateofOccupancyNon-PreclusionofEngineerSafetyDutyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Building received certificate of occupancy following structural modifications; Engineer A discovers structural deficiency
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: The prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the county building official following structural modifications did not preclude or discharge Engineer A's independent duty to report the subsequently discovered structural safety deficiency to the issuing authority.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of structural deficiency in building with existing certificate of occupancy
textreferences: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.026336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Bar Structural Disclosure County Official
type: ConfidentialityNon-OverrideofImminentStructuralSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Client B under a professional services relationship; Engineer A disclosed the structural hazard to the county building official without Client B's explicit authorization, consistent with the principle that confidentiality does not bar public danger disclosure.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's disclosure of the structural instability to the county building official was not barred by client confidentiality obligations, because the structural safety concern — even if non-imminent — constituted a public danger that pre-empted any confidentiality obligation to Client B.
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Upon determination that the structural instability posed a public danger
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.023682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Bar Structural Disclosure County Official Individual
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosureAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly assess that client confidentiality obligations did not bar disclosure of the structural instability to the county building official, because the disclosure involved apparent danger to the public interest rather than the client's technical processes or business affairs.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Client B but correctly determined that confidentiality did not bar notification of the county building official regarding the structural safety risk.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A notified the county building official of the structural hazard despite being retained by Client B, correctly recognizing that confidentiality did not apply to public safety disclosures.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.025745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Corrective Action Proportionality Non-Imminent Collapse
type: CorrectiveActionScopeProportionalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Non-imminent structural collapse risk requiring proportionate graduated escalation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to calibrate the scope and intensity of corrective action to the non-imminent but real nature of the structural collapse risk — pursuing graduated escalation (client notification, county building official notification, written follow-up, supervisor escalation) rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent, widespread dangers.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
temporalscope: Throughout the escalation process following discovery of structural instability
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.026913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Calibration Current Case
type: CorrectiveActionPursuitScopeSelf-DeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Self-Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to determine how far the obligation to seek corrective action extended after pointing out the structural safety concern to Client B and contacting the county building official, recognizing that the obligation was not discharged by a single unanswered phone call.
casecontext: Engineer A had notified Client B and called the county building official who did not return the call, requiring assessment of further obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Professional judgment about the scope of continued pursuit after initial disclosure steps proved insufficient
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
textreferences: Here, Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
textreferences: professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.034228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Current Case Constraint
type: CorrectiveActionScopeProportionalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's structural safety concern was assessed as non-imminent, requiring proportionate graduated escalation rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required in BER Case 00-5 where the bridge collapse risk was both imminent and potentially widespread.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to calibrate the scope and intensity of corrective action pursuit to the non-imminent but real nature of the structural safety concern — pursuing graduated escalation through the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and other agencies with jurisdiction — rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent, widespread dangers such as the bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
temporalscope: Following identification of non-imminent structural safety concern and county building official non-response
textreferences: In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
textreferences: the BER concluded that in BER Case 07-10, the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Actionable Bracing Guidance Building Owners
type: ActionableStructuralRemediationGuidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Actionable Structural Remediation Guidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to provide the building owners with specific, actionable remedial guidance — recommending bracing to prevent collapse — that was proportionate to the assessed risk level and sufficient to enable the owners to take immediate protective action pending full structural assessment.
casecontext: Engineer A observed structural instability and recommended bracing to building owners who had recently made structural modifications
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recommendation to building owners to brace the building to prevent collapse
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to provide the building owners with specific, actionable remedial guidance — recommending bracing to prevent collapse
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to provide the building owners with specific, actionable remedial guidance — recommending bracing to prevent collapse
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.035862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification
type: CertificateofOccupancyAuthorityRe-NotificationAfterStructuralModificationDiscoveryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county building official had issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications to the building; Engineer A called the official but the call was not returned; the obligation to notify the issuing authority persisted and required escalation.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (current case)
obligationclass: Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification After Structural Modification Discovery Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify the county building official — who had issued the certificate of occupancy following structural modifications — of the newly identified structural safety concern, recognizing that the official who granted occupancy approval bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use.
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the structural safety concern and learning that a certificate of occupancy had been issued following modifications
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.031879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Calibration
type: CorrectiveActionPursuitScopeDeterminationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified structural instability, notified Client B and the county building official, but did not pursue further escalation after the official failed to respond.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (current case)
obligationclass: Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Determination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to determine how far the obligation to seek corrective action extended after pointing out the structural safety concern to Client B and the county building official, and to pursue escalation commensurate with the non-imminent but real risk profile.
sourcetext: In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
temporalscope: After initial notification to Client B and county building official
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
textreferences: In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.029596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
type: ForensicBuildingInvestigationEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Forensic building investigation'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer retained by Client B to conduct forensic investigation of a building (fire origin/cause or structural assessment), who observed structural hazards, notified Client B and the county building official (who did not return calls), and had obligations to escalate to the county official's supervisor, fire marshal, and other authorities having jurisdiction.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:16.101283+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client B Building Safety Investigation Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'escalation_target', 'target': 'Fire Marshal'}
relationships: {'type': 'escalation_target', 'target': 'Supervisor of County Building Official'}
relationships: {'type': 'notified', 'target': 'County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B
textreferences: contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.017017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Non-Imminent Structural Risk Client Collaboration
type: Non-ImminentStructuralRiskPersistentClientCollaborationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified non-imminent structural instability and notified Client B, but the obligation to continue collaborative pursuit of resolution with the client persisted alongside regulatory escalation duties.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (current case)
obligationclass: Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to continue working collaboratively with Client B to pursue resolution of the structural safety concern alongside escalation to regulatory authorities.
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
temporalscope: Ongoing after initial notification to Client B
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.030111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Post-Unresponsive-County-Official Multi-Agency Escalation
type: Post-Unresponsive-OfficialSupervisorandMulti-AgencyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A retained for fire origin/cause investigation observed structural instability, notified Client B and called the county building official who did not return the call; Engineer A did not escalate further.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (current case)
obligationclass: Post-Unresponsive-Official Supervisor and Multi-Agency Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, after the county building official failed to return the phone call, to escalate the structural safety concern to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
temporalscope: Upon failure of the county building official to return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.029458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Proportional Escalation Non-Imminent Building Structural Risk
type: ProportionalEscalationCalibrationBetweenImminentandNon-ImminentStructuralRiskObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A assessed the building structural instability as not presenting an imminent collapse risk but as a real and significant concern requiring continued escalation beyond the unanswered phone call to the county building official.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:07:46.910384+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (current case)
obligationclass: Proportional Escalation Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the escalation response to the non-imminent but real nature of the building structural risk — pursuing escalation to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and other agencies having jurisdiction — rather than either stopping at the initial unanswered phone call or pursuing a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
sourcetext: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
temporalscope: After the county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.031746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Structural Disclosure
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforSafetyDisclosureRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose the incidentally observed structural instability to Client B and the county building official.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained for fire origin and cause investigation but observed structural instability outside that contracted scope
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that fire investigation scope did not limit the obligation to report structural safety concerns observed during the investigation
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding value in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding value in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Immediate Client Notification Structural Hazard
type: FaithfulAgentWrittenRiskNotificationWithoutInvestigationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Client B; upon discovering structural instability during the fire investigation, Engineer A immediately advised Client B before taking further action.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Without Investigation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as faithful agent of Client B, was obligated to immediately advise Client B of the observed structural instability and preliminary findings regarding the cause of the roof sag and wall lean.
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Immediately upon discovery of structural instability
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.022379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Immediate Client Notification Structural Hazard Individual
type: FaithfulAgentWrittenRiskNotificationScopeCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly calibrate the faithful agent obligation upon discovering structural instability — recognizing the duty to immediately advise Client B of the identified structural risk without expanding the contracted scope of work or conducting a full independent structural investigation.
casecontext: Engineer A, as faithful agent of Client B, immediately notified the client of the structural hazard discovered during the fire investigation engagement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Immediate advisement of Client B upon observing structural instability and completing preliminary assessment, without overstepping contracted scope.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.024654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Fire Investigation Engagement
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From hire through completion of investigation
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A retained by Client B for fire origin and cause investigation
terminatedby: Completion of investigation engagement
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss
triggeringevent: Client B hires Engineer A to investigate fire origin and cause
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.013528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Fire Investigation Scope Non-Shield Structural Disclosure Constraint
type: ForensicScopeBoundaryNon-ExculpationforStructuralSafetyDefectConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A retained for fire origin and cause investigation discovered structural instability — roof sag and outward wall lean — caused by recent structural modifications, which fell outside the contracted forensic scope.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Forensic Scope Boundary Non-Exculpation for Structural Safety Defect Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield Engineer A from the obligation to disclose the structural instability discovered incidentally during the investigation to Client B and relevant authorities.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of structural instability during fire investigation engagement
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
type: ForensicBuildingInvestigationEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural Engineering and Forensic Investigation', 'dual_scope': 'Fire investigation (contracted) and structural safety assessment (incidental)'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by Client B to investigate fire origin and cause; independently observed structural instability; reported hazard to client and county building official; recommended bracing to building owners
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:26.827675+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'advised', 'target': 'Building Owners Safety Recommendation Recipients'}
relationships: {'type': 'notified', 'target': 'County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Client B Building Safety Investigation Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building
textreferences: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.014881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Scope-Exceeding Structural Discovery
type: ForensicScope-ExceedingStructuralSafetyDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A observes structural instability through notification of Client B and county building official
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
stateclass: Forensic Scope-Exceeding Structural Safety Discovery State
subject: Engineer A's discovery of structural instability while conducting a fire investigation
terminatedby: Notification to Client B and county building official; recommendation to brace the building
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
triggeringevent: Engineer A observes structural instability in the building while conducting the fire investigation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.013683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Scope Non-Exculpation Structural Disclosure Fire Investigation
type: ForensicScopeBoundaryNon-ExculpationforStructuralSafetyDefectConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A retained for fire investigation discovers structural instability outside contracted scope
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Forensic Scope Boundary Non-Exculpation for Structural Safety Defect Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield Engineer A from the obligation to disclose the structural instability discovered during the investigation, requiring disclosure to Client B and the county building official regardless of the contracted scope boundary.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on scope limitation non-exculpation
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
temporalscope: Upon discovery of structural instability during fire investigation
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.026192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County Building Official Non-Response
type: GraduatedDeadline-ConditionedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: County building official fails to return Engineer A's phone call; graduated escalation obligation triggered
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having called the county building official who failed to return the call, was required to follow a graduated escalation pathway: (1) follow up with written confirmation, (2) set a specific reasonable deadline for corrective action, (3) notify the official in writing that failure to act within the deadline will require escalation to higher authorities, and (4) escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passes without adequate action.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Following county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.027186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Current Case Constraint
type: GraduatedDeadline-ConditionedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural safety concern, triggering Engineer A's obligation to pursue graduated deadline-conditioned escalation rather than treating non-response as a discharge of the reporting obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to follow up the verbal notification to the county building official with written confirmation, set a specific reasonable deadline for corrective action, notify the official in writing that failure to act within the deadline would require escalation to higher authorities, and escalate to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction if the deadline passed without adequate action.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
temporalscope: Following county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
textreferences: If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Fire Investigation
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly calibrate the escalation response to a non-imminent structural collapse risk — pursuing a proportionate, graduated multi-step response (client notification, county official contact, owner bracing recommendation) rather than a full-bore multi-authority emergency campaign appropriate for imminent risk.
casecontext: Engineer A calibrated the escalation scope to the non-imminent nature of the assessed collapse risk, consistent with BER precedent distinguishing imminent from non-imminent risk responses.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Graduated response to non-imminent collapse risk: immediate client advisement, phone call to county building official, and bracing recommendation to owners — proportionate to the assessed risk level.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.025224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Threshold Discrimination Fire Investigation
type: ImminentVersusPotentialRiskThresholdDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent Versus Potential Risk Threshold Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly distinguish between an imminent collapse risk and a real but non-imminent collapse risk, and to calibrate the response proportionately — advising the client, contacting the county building official, and recommending bracing, rather than triggering a full emergency response.
casecontext: Engineer A assessed the structural collapse risk as real but not imminent and calibrated the response accordingly.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Assessment that collapse was 'a danger' but 'not imminent,' followed by proportionate multi-step response including client notification, regulatory contact, and remedial guidance rather than emergency evacuation or immediate full structural investigation.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.025064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation Calibration Current Case
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to calibrate the escalation response to the non-imminent but real nature of the building structural risk — pursuing escalation to the supervisor of the county official and the fire marshal rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign — consistent with the proportionate response framework established in BER Case 07-10.
casecontext: Engineer A observed structural instability during fire investigation and assessed the risk as non-imminent, requiring calibrated rather than full-bore escalation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Assessment that the building was not in danger of imminent collapse, leading to a proportionate rather than full-bore escalation response
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter
textreferences: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.033969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Fire Investigation
type: IncidentalObservationOut-of-ScopeSafetyDeficiencyIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize, upon incidental observation during a contracted fire investigation, that structural instability observed outside the contracted scope constituted a safety deficiency triggering professional disclosure and notification obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A was lawfully present at the building for fire investigation purposes and upon incidental observation identified structural instability as a safety deficiency outside the contracted scope.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Recognition of structural instability during fire investigation; classification of the condition as a genuine risk to public health, safety, or welfare; initiation of notification to client and county building official.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.024526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Incidental Structural Observation Disclosure Fire Investigation
type: IncidentalObservationSafetyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained by Client B to investigate fire origin and cause; during the investigation, Engineer A observed structural instability including roof sag and outward-leaning walls due to insufficient lateral restraint following construction modifications.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Incidental Observation Safety Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, retained for fire origin and cause investigation but also a licensed structural engineer, was obligated upon observing structural instability to disclose that safety risk to the client, building owners, and county building official, notwithstanding the fire investigation scope of the contract.
sourcetext: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
temporalscope: Upon observation of structural instability during the fire investigation
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.022121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Fire Investigation
type: Multi-CredentialIncidentalObservationCompetenceActivationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that an incidental observation made during a fire origin and cause investigation activated professional competence and disclosure obligations from a second domain — structural engineering — and correctly applied structural engineering competencies to assess and communicate the observed structural instability risk.
casecontext: Engineer A held credentials in both fire investigation and structural engineering, and upon observing structural instability during the contracted fire investigation, activated structural engineering competence to assess and report the risk.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that structural instability observed during fire investigation triggered structural engineering obligations; performance of preliminary structural assessment; notification of client and county building official; recommendation to brace building.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building
textreferences: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.024220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Credential Structural Competence Activation Fire Investigation
type: Multi-CredentialIncidentalObservationCompetenceActivationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained for fire investigation but also held structural engineering credentials; upon observing structural instability, Engineer A performed a preliminary structural investigation and concluded that construction modifications had caused roof sag and wall lean due to insufficient lateral restraint.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, holding both fire investigation and structural engineering credentials, was obligated upon observing structural instability during the fire investigation to activate structural engineering competence, evaluate the condition against applicable safety standards, and act on that evaluation.
sourcetext: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
temporalscope: Upon observation of structural instability during the fire investigation
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
textreferences: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.022251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Credential Structural Competence Activation Fire Investigation Constraint
type: Multi-CredentialCompetenceActivationSafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's dual credentials in fire investigation and structural engineering meant that the structural instability observed during the fire investigation triggered an obligation to assess and disclose the risk using structural engineering competence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Multi-Credential Competence Activation Safety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, holding both fire investigation and structural engineering credentials, could not disclaim competence-based awareness of the structural instability observed during the fire investigation by reference to the contracted forensic scope, and was required to apply structural engineering knowledge to assess and disclose the safety risk.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; competence and scope provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
temporalscope: Upon observation of structural instability during fire investigation
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A notified both Client B and the county building official, and also recommended to the building owners that they brace the structure; the building owners had recently made structural changes to the building.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify the current building owners of the structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the county building official, recognizing that the owners are the parties most immediately affected by the risk and most capable of taking prompt protective action.
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Upon identification of structural instability
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.023945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Current Case Constraint
type: NewPropertyOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified a structural safety deficiency in a building owned by Client B and was obligated to notify Client B before or in conjunction with notifying the county building official, consistent with the priority notification principle established in BER Case 07-10.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to notify the current building owners of the structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the county building official, establishing that the property owners' direct interest in the safety of their own building created a priority notification right that preceded or accompanied official escalation.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
temporalscope: Upon identification of structural deficiency in building owned by Client B
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Imminent Collapse Proportionate Response Calibration
type: Non-ImminentStructuralCollapseProportionateResponseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A assessed the structural collapse risk as non-imminent but real, and responded by advising Client B, calling the county building official, and recommending bracing to the building owners.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Proportionate Response Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the response to the non-imminent but real structural collapse risk proportionately — advising the client, notifying the county building official, and providing actionable remedial guidance to the building owners — without triggering a maximum-emergency multi-authority campaign disproportionate to the non-imminent risk.
sourcetext: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
temporalscope: Upon assessment of non-imminent but real collapse risk
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.022803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Imminent Structural Risk Client Collaboration Current Case
type: Non-ImminentStructuralRiskPersistentClientCollaborationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to continue working collaboratively with Client B to pursue resolution of the structural safety concern alongside escalation to the supervisor of the county official and the fire marshal, recognizing that client collaboration and regulatory escalation are complementary obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A identified non-imminent structural risk and was required to pursue resolution through both client collaboration and regulatory escalation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to maintain collaborative engagement with Client B while simultaneously pursuing regulatory escalation pathways
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.034355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Structural Hazard
type: PersistentSafetyEscalationBeyondUnresponsiveAuthorityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the county building official's failure to return the phone call did not discharge the professional obligation to pursue corrective action, and to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials or alternative regulatory bodies until the safety concern was adequately addressed.
casecontext: Engineer A's initial regulatory contact went unanswered, requiring persistent escalation beyond the unresponsive official.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The county building official's non-response created the obligation to persist in escalation — the capability to recognize and fulfill this obligation is implicated by the case facts.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.026019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive County Official Constraint
type: PersistentSafetyEscalationBeyondUnresponsiveAuthorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural safety concern, triggering Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond the unresponsive official rather than treating non-response as a discharge of the reporting obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not treat the county building official's failure to return the phone call as a complete discharge of the safety reporting obligation, and was required to escalate to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
temporalscope: Following county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.033108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Unresponsive-County-Official Supervisor Fire Marshal Escalation Current Case
type: Post-Unresponsive-OfficialMulti-AgencyEscalationPathwayNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Pathway Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required, after the county building official failed to return the phone call, to escalate the structural safety concern to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
casecontext: County building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural hazard discovered during fire investigation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that a single unanswered phone call to the county building official did not discharge the professional obligation to pursue corrective action
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:10:53.999151+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.034098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Unresponsive-Official Escalation County Building Official
type: Post-Unresponsive-OfficialSupervisorandMulti-AgencyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural hazard; Engineer A had not yet escalated to higher authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Unresponsive-Official Supervisor and Multi-Agency Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, having called the county building official who failed to return the call, was obligated to escalate the structural safety concern to the county building official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies having jurisdiction, rather than treating the unanswered phone call as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Following the county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call within a reasonable period
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.023207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Pathway Navigation Individual
type: Post-Unresponsive-OfficialMulti-AgencyEscalationPathwayNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Pathway Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the county building official's failure to return the phone call did not discharge the professional obligation, and to identify and navigate the appropriate escalation pathway — including contacting the supervisor of the unresponsive official and other agencies having jurisdiction — to ensure the structural safety concern received authoritative attention.
casecontext: Engineer A's initial contact with the county building official went unanswered, requiring identification and navigation of escalation pathways to supervisory officials and other agencies with jurisdiction.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The county building official's non-response to Engineer A's phone call created the obligation to escalate — the capability to identify and pursue this escalation pathway is implicated by the case facts.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.025491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Verbal-Notification Written Follow-Up County Official Non-Response
type: Post-Verbal-NotificationWrittenConfirmationandMonitoringObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A called the county building official to report the structural hazard; the county building official did not return the call; Engineer A had not yet followed up in writing or escalated to higher authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Verbal-Notification Written Confirmation and Monitoring Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, having verbally contacted the county building official who did not return the call, was obligated to follow up with written confirmation of the structural safety concern, make a written record of all communications, and continue monitoring the situation with escalation to higher authorities if appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period.
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Following the county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.023075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Verbal-Notification Written Follow-Up County Official Non-Response Individual
type: WrittenCommunicationFollow-UpAfterVerbalSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that verbal notification to the county building official — who did not return the phone call — was insufficient to discharge the professional obligation, and that written follow-up confirmation was required to create a documented record and establish the basis for further escalation.
casecontext: Engineer A called the county building official who failed to return the call, triggering the obligation to follow up in writing and escalate if necessary.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The case facts establish that Engineer A called the county building official who did not return the call, creating the obligation for written follow-up — the capability to recognize and fulfill this obligation is implicated by the facts.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.025358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Client B
type: PotentialSafetyRiskWrittenNotificationWithoutInvestigationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identifies non-imminent structural collapse risk and advises Client B
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to advise Client B in writing of the observed structural instability and preliminary findings — including the risk of roof sag and outward wall lean — without being obligated to conduct a full structural investigation beyond the preliminary assessment.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4 and III.1.b
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Immediately upon identification of structural instability
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.026771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Constraint
type: PotentialSafetyRiskWrittenNotificationWithoutInvestigationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified a potential structural collapse risk and was obligated to notify Client B in writing, though the obligation did not require Engineer A to conduct a full structural investigation beyond the preliminary assessment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to advise Client B in writing of the identified structural instability risk — roof sag and outward wall lean — while this notification obligation did not extend to a duty to investigate the risk further or recommend specific mitigation alternatives beyond the preliminary finding.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections I.4 and III.1.b; BER Case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
temporalscope: Upon identification of structural instability during fire investigation
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Structural Assessment Epistemic Qualification Disclosure
type: PreliminaryStructuralAssessmentDisclosureWithEpistemicQualificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducts preliminary structural investigation and discloses findings to client and county building official
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Preliminary Structural Assessment Disclosure With Epistemic Qualification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having conducted only a preliminary structural investigation, was required to disclose the identified structural instability to Client B and the county building official while explicitly qualifying the disclosure as based on preliminary professional judgment — prohibiting both silence and overstatement of certainty.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
temporalscope: Upon completion of preliminary structural investigation
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.026604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment Fire Investigation
type: PreliminaryStructuralInstabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed advanced structural engineering competence enabling preliminary field assessment of building structural instability — including identification of roof sagging, outward wall lean, and insufficient lateral restraint — during a fire origin and cause investigation, and formation of a professional judgment that collapse was a real but non-imminent danger.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained for fire origin and cause investigation but also held structural engineering credentials, enabling activation of structural competence upon observing instability indicators during the contracted engagement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Observation of structural instability during fire investigation, preliminary investigation of building, conclusion that recent structural changes caused roof sag and wall lean due to insufficient lateral restraint, and assessment that collapse was a danger though not imminent.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
textreferences: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.024081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Structural Hazard Fire Investigation
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the identified structural collapse risk exceeded the client relationship and required escalation to the county building official as the appropriate regulatory authority, and to act on that recognition by initiating contact with the official.
casecontext: Engineer A recognized that the structural safety risk required escalation beyond the client relationship to the regulatory authority responsible for building safety.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Calling the county building official upon identifying structural instability, in addition to notifying Client B.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.025893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Structural Disclosure Fire Investigation
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforMaterialEvidenceOmissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained for fire investigation only; the structural instability was outside the contracted scope; Engineer A nonetheless disclosed the structural hazard to the client, building official, and building owners.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose the structural instability observed during the investigation, and to act on that observation consistent with public welfare obligations.
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
temporalscope: Upon observation of structural instability during the fire investigation
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.023345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Structural Disclosure Fire Investigation Individual
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforSafetyDisclosureRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the contractual scope of work — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose and act upon the structural safety concern observed incidentally during the contracted engagement.
casecontext: Engineer A's contracted scope was fire investigation, but upon observing structural instability, correctly recognized that scope limitation did not extinguish the professional obligation to disclose and act on the structural safety concern.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Despite being retained only for fire origin and cause investigation, Engineer A performed a preliminary structural assessment, notified the client, contacted the county building official, and recommended bracing to the building owners.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
textreferences: Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.024375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation Structural Safety Fire Case Constraint
type: ScopeLimitationNon-ExculpationforKnownSafetyRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained for fire origin and cause investigation but observed structural instability — roof sag and outward wall lean — that fell outside the contracted scope, yet remained obligated to disclose the safety risk.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation for Known Safety Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's contracted scope of fire origin and cause investigation did not exculpate or excuse Engineer A from disclosing the structural instability observed incidentally during the investigation — the scope boundary constrained Engineer A's obligation to remediate the deficiency but did not constrain the obligation to disclose it.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; scope and safety provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
temporalscope: Throughout the fire investigation engagement
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.033258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Verbal-Only Notification Written Follow-Up County Building Official
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyNotificationWrittenFollow-UpConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: County building official fails to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural safety concern
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, having made only a verbal (phone call) notification to the county building official who failed to return the call, was required to follow up that verbal notification with written documentation of the structural safety concern — prohibiting reliance on the unanswered phone call alone as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:47.541030+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
temporalscope: Following county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.027049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Current Case Constraint
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyNotificationWrittenFollow-UpConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the county building official regarding the structural safety concern but the official did not return the call, requiring written follow-up to create a documented record and ensure the notification was formally communicated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's verbal contact with the county building official — who did not return the call — was insufficient as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation, requiring Engineer A to follow up with written documentation of the structural safety concern.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:09:52.260751+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
temporalscope: Following verbal contact with county building official who did not return the call
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.032704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification Building Owners
type: WrittenThird-PartySafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally recommended to the building owners that they brace the building to prevent collapse; the case does not indicate that this recommendation was made in writing.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:00:00.019063+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Written Third-Party Safety Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify the building owners in writing about the structural deficiency — in addition to any verbal recommendation to brace the building — so that the affected parties had a documented record of the risk and could take informed protective action.
sourcetext: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
temporalscope: Upon identification of structural instability and recommendation to building owners
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.023811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification Building Owners Individual
type: WrittenThird-PartySafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional obligation to notify the building owners in writing about the structural deficiency — beyond the verbal recommendation to brace — ensuring that the at-risk parties had documented, actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures.
casecontext: Engineer A provided a verbal bracing recommendation to the building owners, with the professional obligation to follow up in writing to create a documented record of the safety notification.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent collapse; the obligation to provide this in writing is implicated by the case facts and professional ethics standards.
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:01:22.598846+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.025619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A learning of barn extension before Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A's notification of Client B and county official before recommendation to brace the building
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A's preliminary structural investigation before verbal notification to Client B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor (BER 07-10) before town supervisor's inaction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_FireCase
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: Professional engineering community consensus
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
usedby: Engineer A when deciding how to respond to unresponsive county building official
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate the structural safety concern beyond the client to the county building official, and the question of what further obligations arise when the official fails to respond
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.013103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering community
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (Professional Norm)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
textreferences: professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's continuing obligations after Client B and the county building official failed to respond adequately
usedincontext: The operative professional norm governing how far an engineer's obligation to seek corrective action reaches when a client or authority fails to act on a reported safety concern, including graduated escalation through multiple authorities
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.016306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Engineer_Safety_Recommendation_Rejection_Standard_FireCase
type: EngineerSafetyRecommendationRejectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering community consensus
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
usedby: Engineer A after recommending structural bracing to building owners
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligations after recommending bracing to prevent collapse, including documentation of the recommendation and determination of whether the client's or official's inaction creates a public safety threat requiring further escalation
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.013233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A To Client B
type: FaithfulAgentNotificationObligationforProjectSuccessRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B as the retaining client
balancingwith: Public welfare paramount (client notification alone is insufficient)
balancingwith: Scope-of-work limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as faithful agent of Client B, immediately advised Client B of the observed structural instability and preliminary findings regarding the cause of the roof sag and wall lean, fulfilling the faithful agent obligation to advise the client of identified risks even outside the contracted scope
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent relationship required Engineer A to advise Client B of the structural hazard discovered during the fire investigation, even though the structural assessment was outside the contracted scope, because the hazard affected Client B's property interests
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
tensionresolution: Faithful agent notification obligation is satisfied by advising Client B, but does not discharge the broader public welfare obligation to notify regulatory authorities and building owners
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.021390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Fire Occurs at Building
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Fire Occurs at Building → Structural Instability Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Graduated Escalation Calibration - Current Case vs BER 00-5
type: GraduatedEscalationObligationCalibratedtoDangerSeverityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial notification through determination of appropriate escalation level
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: County official's supervisor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Fire marshal
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
stateclass: Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to calibrate escalation response to the intermediate severity of the structural safety concern
terminatedby: Appropriate escalation pathway identified and pursued
textreferences: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter.
textreferences: In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
textreferences: The limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
triggeringevent: Engineer A identified structural concern not rising to imminent collapse level, requiring calibrated rather than full-bore escalation response
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.019953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Graduated Escalation Obligation — Non-Imminent Structural Collapse
type: GraduatedEscalationObligationCalibratedtoDangerSeverityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From county building official's non-response through resolution of structural safety concern
affectedparties: Building owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
stateclass: Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
subject: Engineer A must calibrate escalation response to non-imminent but real structural collapse risk after county building official fails to respond
terminatedby: Appropriate authority responds and takes action, or Engineer A escalates to supervisor or other agencies with jurisdiction
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
triggeringevent: County building official fails to return Engineer A's call, leaving non-imminent structural risk unaddressed
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.014560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

I.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Applied in Current Case
type: IncidentalObservationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Building Safety Investigation Client
appliedto: County Building Official (Current Case)
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Contractual scope limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained for fire origin/cause investigation, independently observed structural instability outside the contracted scope and disclosed it to Client B and the county building official, fulfilling the initial disclosure obligation but not yet the full escalation obligation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The disclosure obligation applies to safety-relevant observations outside contracted scope; Engineer A correctly made the initial disclosure but was required to continue escalating when the county official failed to respond
invokedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
tensionresolution: The disclosure obligation overrides contractual scope limitations when a material safety risk is identified
textreferences: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.028880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
type: IncidentalObservationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structural instability observed during fire investigation
balancingwith: Faithful agent obligation
balancingwith: Scope-of-work limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, while conducting a fire origin and cause investigation, incidentally observed structural instability outside the contracted scope and discharged the disclosure obligation by notifying the client, calling the county building official, and recommending bracing to the building owners
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The incidental observation of structural instability during a fire investigation triggered disclosure obligations to the client, regulatory authority, and building owners, even though the structural assessment was outside the contracted scope
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
tensionresolution: Incidental observation disclosure obligation overrides scope limitations; Engineer A correctly disclosed the structural hazard despite it being outside the fire investigation scope
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.020624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Jones's barn extension construction before issuance of certificate of occupancy for barn extension
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation - Bridge Case BER 00-5
type: Multi-AuthorityEscalationObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From observation of unsafe traffic crossing reopened bridge through resolution
affectedparties: County commissioners
affectedparties: County prosecutors
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: State and federal transportation officials
affectedparties: State engineering licensure board
affectedparties: Supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and other such authorities as appropriate.
stateclass: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's professional obligation following non-engineer override and ongoing unsafe traffic
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and other such authorities as appropriate.
triggeringevent: Observation of significant bridge movement and overweight vehicles (log trucks, tankers) crossing despite five-ton limit, with no follow-up inspection
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.018354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Structural Expertise
type: Multi-CredentialCompetenceActivationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structural instability observed during fire investigation
balancingwith: Scope-of-work limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained for fire investigation but also a licensed structural engineer, was obligated to apply structural engineering competence to evaluate and report on the observed structural instability, even though the engagement was contracted for fire origin and cause investigation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's dual credentials in fire investigation and structural engineering created an obligation to act on the structural instability observation; a single-discipline fire investigator without structural credentials would not have had the same obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation
sourcetext: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
tensionresolution: Multi-credential competence activation obligation requires Engineer A to apply structural engineering expertise to the observed hazard; the scope limitation does not override the obligation created by the engineer's secondary credential
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
textreferences: Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.021194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Building_Investigation
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
usedby: Engineer A during building investigation and safety escalation decision
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligations to hold public safety paramount, notify relevant authorities of structural danger, and advise the client of risks — including the duty to escalate when the county building official fails to respond
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.012675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the overriding value in the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the overriding value in the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: there are basic values and principles in the NSPE Code of Ethics that provide important guidance to professional engineers who are faced with such situations
usedby: Engineer A and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the ethical obligations of engineers facing public safety threats
usedincontext: Identified as the overriding normative framework establishing the engineer's fundamental obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare; cited as providing 'basic values and principles' guiding engineers in public safety dilemmas
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.015312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Non-Engineer Public Works Director Bridge Reopening Decision - BER Case 00-5
type: Non-EngineerAuthorityDirectingEngineeringSafetyDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From public works director's decision to commission retired bridge inspector through Engineer A's observation of ongoing unsafe traffic
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Log truck and tanker operators
affectedparties: Public works director
affectedparties: Retired bridge inspector
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
stateclass: Non-Engineer Authority Directing Engineering Safety Decision State
subject: Public works director's authority over bridge safety determination and reopening
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge.
textreferences: No follow-up inspection was undertaken.
triggeringevent: Nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and authorized installation of two crutch piles and reopening with five-ton limit
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.017871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk
type: Non-ImminentStructuralCollapseRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's preliminary investigation conclusion through implementation of bracing or other remediation
affectedparties: Building owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Occupants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
stateclass: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
subject: Building assessed by Engineer A as at risk of collapse, though not imminently
terminatedby: Structural bracing installed or other remediation completed
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
triggeringevent: Engineer A concludes that roof sag and outward-leaning walls due to insufficient lateral restraint create a danger of collapse
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.014007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk - BER Case 07-10
type: Non-ImminentStructuralCollapseRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery of modifications through resolution of safety concern
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: County and state building officials
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones (owner)
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
stateclass: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
subject: Barn structure with removed load-bearing columns and footings, at risk under severe snow loads
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse
textreferences: Engineer A was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: The danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
triggeringevent: Removal of columns and footings supporting barn roof during extension construction
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.018932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Persistent Escalation Obligation Applied in BER Case 07-10
type: PersistentEscalationObligationWhenInitialSafetyReportIsUnacknowledged
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural modification risk
appliedto: Town supervisor
balancingwith: Deference to regulatory authority
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but took no action; Engineer A was required to follow up in writing, set a deadline for action, and escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passed without adequate response
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A verbal acknowledgment without action does not discharge the engineer's obligation; the engineer must follow up in writing with a specific deadline and escalate if the deadline passes
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
tensionresolution: The obligation to protect public safety requires continued monitoring and escalation until adequate corrective action is taken
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
textreferences: If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.027943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Persistent Escalation Obligation Triggered By County Building Official Non-Response
type: PersistentEscalationObligationWhenInitialSafetyReportIsUnacknowledged
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County building official non-response to structural hazard notification
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Employer concurrence requirement for post-obligation advocacy
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural hazard triggers an obligation for Engineer A to escalate beyond the initial phone call — including written follow-up, escalation to supervisory officials, or notification of alternative regulatory authorities — rather than treating the unanswered call as a discharged obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the county building official's non-response means Engineer A's public welfare obligation is not yet discharged; further escalation is required to ensure the structural hazard is addressed by appropriate authorities
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
sourcetext: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
tensionresolution: Persistent escalation obligation requires Engineer A to take further action beyond the unanswered phone call; the non-response does not discharge the safety reporting obligation
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.020773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern
type: Post-Certificate-of-OccupancyStructuralSafetyConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's structural assessment through resolution by building official or remediation
affectedparties: Building owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
stateclass: Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern State
subject: Engineer A identifies structural safety concern in building that already holds a certificate of occupancy
terminatedby: Building official investigates and takes action, or structural remediation is completed
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
triggeringevent: Engineer A concludes structural deficiency exists in building for which certificate of occupancy was already issued
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.014367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern - Current Case
type: Post-Certificate-of-OccupancyStructuralSafetyConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of structural concern through escalation to appropriate authorities
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: County building official
affectedparties: County official's supervisor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Fire marshal
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
stateclass: Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern State
subject: Engineer A's structural safety concern regarding building for which certificate of occupancy has been issued
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
triggeringevent: Engineer A identified structural safety concern in building that had already received certificate of occupancy
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.019786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Implicated By County Non-Response
type: Post-Client-RefusalEscalationAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County building official's failure to respond to structural hazard notification
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Employer concurrence requirement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call is analogous to a regulatory authority's failure to act on a safety notification, triggering an obligation for Engineer A to assess whether further escalation — to supervisory officials, state authorities, or other regulatory bodies — is required to protect the public
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The county building official's non-response requires Engineer A to assess whether the initial notification was sufficient or whether further escalation is required; the non-response does not discharge the engineer's public welfare obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
sourcetext: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
tensionresolution: Post-client-refusal escalation assessment obligation requires Engineer A to critically assess whether further action is needed after the county official's non-response
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.021983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Post-Sale Structural Safety Concern - BER Case 07-10
type: Post-SaleOriginalDesignerContinuingSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A learning of Jones's structural modifications through verbal notification to town supervisor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Jones (new owner)
affectedparties: Occupants of barn
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones.
stateclass: Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's barn designed and built on property subsequently sold to Jones, who made structural modifications
terminatedby: Not fully resolved — town supervisor agreed to review but took no action
textreferences: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
textreferences: Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof.
triggeringevent: Engineer A learned that Jones had removed columns and footings supporting the roof as part of barn extension, raising concern about collapse under severe snow loads
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.018565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Obligation Applied to Current Case
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structurally unstable building with recent structural modifications
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Contractual scope limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, the non-imminent but significant structural risk required escalation beyond the unanswered county building official contact to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Non-imminent but significant structural risk triggers a measured but persistent escalation obligation — not a full-bore multi-authority campaign, but more than a single unanswered phone call
invokedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter
tensionresolution: The measured escalation level is appropriate to the non-imminent nature of the risk while still discharging the public welfare obligation
textreferences: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.027798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Obligation Invoked in Comparison of BER Cases 00-5 and 07-10
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural modification risk (BER 07-10)
appliedto: Bridge collapse risk (BER 00-5)
appliedto: Building structural instability (current case)
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER distinguished between the full-bore multi-authority escalation required in BER Case 00-5 (imminent, widespread bridge collapse risk) and the more measured written notification to owner and town supervisor required in BER Case 07-10 (non-imminent, limited barn collapse risk), establishing that the appropriate escalation level is calibrated to risk imminence and breadth
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The appropriate escalation level is determined by assessing (1) imminence of harm, (2) breadth of population at risk, (3) whether the engineer has specific public responsibility for the asset, and (4) whether initial notifications have been acknowledged
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: the facts and circumstances of BER Case 07-10 were different in several respects from those in BER Case 00-5
tensionresolution: The principle resolves the tension between over-response and under-response by calibrating the obligation to the nature of the risk
textreferences: the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation. The BER concluded that in BER Case 07-10, the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
textreferences: the facts and circumstances of BER Case 07-10 were different in several respects from those in BER Case 00-5. First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.027659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation Applied in BER Case 00-5
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedPublicSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: 280-foot bridge with rotten pilings
appliedto: County Commission
appliedto: State and federal transportation officials
balancingwith: Deference to supervisor direction
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A as local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take a full-bore campaign to county governing authority, prosecutors, state/federal transportation officials, and the state engineering licensure board — a higher standard than would apply to a private consulting engineer
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public employment with specific infrastructure responsibility creates a dual accountability — to the engineering profession and to the public trust — that elevates the required escalation standard beyond that of a private practitioner
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
principleclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
sourcetext: as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue
tensionresolution: The heightened public employee obligation overrides deference to employer direction when public safety is at risk
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
textreferences: in BER Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.028574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Public Pressure Override of Bridge Closure - BER Case 00-5
type: PublicPressureOverridingEngineeringSafetyClosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From rally and petition presentation through County Commission decision not to reopen
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Petitioning residents
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
stateclass: Public Pressure Overriding Engineering Safety Closure State
subject: County Commission decision-making context following community petition to reopen bridge
terminatedby: County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge (pressure resisted in this instance)
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damage and the efforts underway to replace the bridge.
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
triggeringevent: Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission requesting bridge reopening to limited traffic
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.017705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk — Structural Instability
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of structural deficiency through remediation or demolition
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Building owners
affectedparties: Client B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:12.649922+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Structural instability of building poses danger to occupants and public
terminatedby: Structural bracing installed, building condemned, or other protective action taken
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
triggeringevent: Engineer A concludes building is structurally unstable with risk of collapse
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.014724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Fire Investigation
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structurally unstable building with non-imminent collapse risk
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful agent obligation
balancingwith: Scope-of-work limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained for a fire investigation, recognized a structural collapse hazard and immediately took steps to protect the public by notifying the client, the county building official, and the building owners — prioritizing public safety over the narrow scope of the contracted engagement
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to act on observed structural instability even though it was outside the contracted fire investigation scope, because the engineer's professional competence enabled recognition of a hazard that could harm building occupants and the public
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides scope limitations and confidentiality concerns; Engineer A correctly notified client, regulatory authority, and building owners
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.020448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A in BER Case 00-5
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: 280-foot bridge with rotten pilings 30 feet above a stream
balancingwith: Deference to supervisor direction
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
balancingwith: Public pressure
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as local government bridge engineer, ordered bridge closure upon learning of rotten pilings, maintained the closure against public pressure and petition, and bore an obligation to escalate to multiple authorities when a non-engineer public works director overrode the engineering safety determination
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare obligation required Engineer A to resist public pressure, political pressure, and non-engineer supervisor override, and to escalate to county governing authority, prosecutors, state/federal transportation officials, and licensing board
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides all competing considerations when an imminent and widespread safety risk is identified
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities. By failing to take this action, Engineer A had ignored his basic professional and ethical obligations.
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.027503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A in Current Case
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structurally unstable building with recent structural modifications
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Contractual scope limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, retained for fire origin/cause investigation, independently observed structural instability and reported it to Client B and the county building official, recognizing an obligation to protect building occupants and the public from potential structural collapse
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare obligation required Engineer A to report structural hazard even though it was outside the contracted scope of the fire investigation engagement
invokedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides contractual scope limitations and confidentiality when a material safety risk is identified
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
textreferences: The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding value in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.027339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond the unresponsive county building official change if Client B objects to further disclosure, and at what point does Engineer A's duty to the public override the faithful agent duty to the client?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Because Engineer A's structural assessment was described as 'preliminary,' does the epistemic uncertainty of that assessment affect the threshold at which escalation becomes obligatory, and should Engineer A have sought a more definitive structural evaluation before contacting regulatory authorities?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the fact that a county building official already issued a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications create a heightened or diminished obligation for Engineer A to escalate, given that the official's prior action implicitly endorsed the building's safety?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: What are Engineer A's ongoing obligations if the building owners decline to implement the recommended bracing, and does that refusal independently trigger a duty to escalate to additional authorities even absent the county official's non-response?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.593105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation to Client B conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when Client B, having been notified, might prefer that Engineer A not escalate further to supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities who could impose costly remediation or liability?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Risk Threshold Calibration principle — which counsels proportionate rather than maximum escalation for non-imminent risks — conflict with the Persistent Escalation Obligation triggered by the county building official's non-response, and how should Engineer A resolve the tension between measured response and the duty to keep pressing until the hazard is addressed?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense principle conflict with the Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation in determining how far Engineer A's structural analysis should extend: if Engineer A's forensic engagement was limited to fire origin and cause, does invoking structural expertise simultaneously expand both the duty to disclose and the duty to perform a thorough structural evaluation beyond what a preliminary assessment provides?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Written Documentation Requirement — which demands that safety notifications be memorialized in writing — conflict with the Proportional Escalation Obligation for non-imminent risks, in the sense that imposing a formal written escalation chain on a non-imminent hazard may be disproportionate, yet failing to document leaves the public unprotected if the verbal-only notification is ignored as it was in BER Case 07-10?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to protect public safety by stopping at a verbal phone call to the county building official, or does the duty to hold public welfare paramount impose an unconditional obligation to escalate in writing regardless of the non-imminent nature of the collapse risk?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision to limit escalation to a single unanswered phone call produce the best achievable outcome for public safety, given that the building retained a certificate of occupancy and the collapse risk remained unmitigated, and would a written multi-agency escalation campaign have produced a meaningfully safer outcome at proportionate cost?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a competent structural engineer by recommending bracing to the owners and making a single phone call, or does genuine professional virtue require persistent, documented advocacy until a responsible authority acknowledges and acts on the structural deficiency?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's dual role as forensic fire investigator and licensed structural engineer create a non-waivable duty to act on incidentally discovered structural hazards, such that the scope-of-work limitation of the fire investigation contract cannot serve as a moral or professional defense for inaction, and how does this duty interact with the faithful agent obligation owed to Client B?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had immediately followed the unanswered phone call with a written notification to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, would the certificate of occupancy have been suspended and the collapse risk mitigated before the building was reoccupied, and does the absence of that written escalation constitute a breach of Engineer A's ethical obligations regardless of the non-imminent nature of the risk?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if the county building official had returned Engineer A's phone call but refused to revoke the certificate of occupancy, citing the prior inspection as sufficient — would Engineer A's ethical obligations have required escalation to the fire marshal, state building authority, or other agencies, and how does the BER 07-10 precedent of deadline-conditioned escalation inform what Engineer A should have done next?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: What if Client B had explicitly instructed Engineer A not to contact any government authorities about the structural deficiency, invoking confidentiality — would that instruction have relieved Engineer A of the obligation to notify the county building official and escalate further, or does the public welfare paramount principle override any client-imposed confidentiality constraint in a case involving structural collapse risk?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the structural instability Engineer A discovered had posed an imminent rather than non-imminent collapse risk, how would Engineer A's escalation obligations have differed — would the BER 00-5 precedent of full-bore, multi-agency escalation and physical closure measures have applied, and does the non-imminent characterization in the current case represent a meaningful ethical distinction or merely a difference in urgency rather than in the underlying duty?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.594891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Resistance to Public Pressure Applied in BER Case 00-5
type: ResistancetoPublicPressureonSafetyDeterminations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: 280-foot bridge with rotten pilings
appliedto: County Commission
appliedto: Non-engineer public works director
balancingwith: Deference to supervisor direction
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A maintained the bridge closure against a petition with 200 signatures and a public rally; the County Commission supported the closure, but Engineer A faced an obligation to resist when the non-engineer public works director subsequently overrode the engineering safety determination by having a retired non-engineer bridge inspector examine the bridge
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineering safety determinations are not subject to democratic override through petitions or political pressure; the engineer must maintain the determination and escalate when it is overridden by non-technical authorities
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
principleclass: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
sourcetext: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
tensionresolution: Professional safety judgment overrides public and political pressure; the engineer must escalate when safety determinations are overridden without adequate technical justification
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.028405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.596706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.591982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:31:22.592042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Risk Threshold Calibration Applied to Current Case
type: RiskThresholdCalibrationinPublicSafetyReporting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structurally unstable building with recent structural modifications
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A assessed the building structural instability as not presenting an imminent collapse risk, placing it in the category of significant but non-imminent risk that triggers a measured but persistent escalation obligation rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-imminent nature of the risk calibrates the required escalation to a measured but persistent response — escalating to supervisor of county official, fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction, rather than contacting prosecutors and state/federal officials
invokedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
sourcetext: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse
tensionresolution: The measured escalation level is appropriate to the non-imminent nature of the risk while still discharging the public welfare obligation
textreferences: Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.029040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Risk Threshold Calibration Invoked By Engineer A Non-Imminent Collapse Assessment
type: RiskThresholdCalibrationinPublicSafetyReporting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-imminent structural collapse risk assessment
balancingwith: Proportional escalation obligation
balancingwith: Public welfare paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A assessed the structural collapse risk as non-imminent but real, and calibrated the response accordingly — notifying the client, calling the county building official, and recommending bracing to building owners — rather than treating the non-imminent characterization as eliminating the reporting obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-imminent characterization of the collapse risk did not eliminate Engineer A's reporting obligations; it calibrated the response to a measured but proactive notification to client, regulatory authority, and building owners rather than emergency-level escalation
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
sourcetext: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
tensionresolution: Non-imminent risk still triggers notification obligations; Engineer A correctly notified relevant parties even though the risk was not characterized as imminent
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.021561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Safety Closure Barrier Removal - BER Case 00-5
type: SafetyClosureEnforcementFailureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Monday discovery of removed barricades through installation of more permanent barricades
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Unknown parties who removed barriers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the 'Bridge Closed' sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway.
stateclass: Safety Closure Enforcement Failure State
subject: Physical barricades and signs erected by Engineer A to close hazardous bridge
terminatedby: Installation of more permanent barricades and signs
textreferences: More permanent barricades and signs were installed.
textreferences: On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the 'Bridge Closed' sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway.
triggeringevent: Barricades found dumped in river and 'Bridge Closed' sign found beyond trees on Monday following Friday closure
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.018191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Scope-of-Work Limitation Non-Defense Invoked By Engineer A Structural Disclosure
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structural instability findings made during fire investigation
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful agent obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose the structural instability findings already made during the engagement; the scope limitation defined the investigation obligation but not the disclosure obligation for findings already made
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The fire investigation scope limitation did not authorize Engineer A to suppress the structural instability findings; once the findings were made within the course of the engagement, the disclosure obligation arose independently of the scope limitation
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss
tensionresolution: Scope limitation is an incomplete ethical defense; Engineer A correctly disclosed the structural findings despite the fire investigation scope
textreferences: During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.021844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense Applied in Current Case
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client B Building Safety Investigation Client
appliedto: Structurally unstable building
balancingwith: Contractual obligations to client
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was retained for fire origin/cause investigation but observed structural instability; the contractual scope limitation did not excuse non-disclosure of the structural hazard, and Engineer A was obligated to report it and continue escalating when the initial report was unacknowledged
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The fire investigation scope limitation defined the boundaries of required investigation but did not authorize suppression of structural safety findings already made within that investigation
invokedby: Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
tensionresolution: Material safety findings must be disclosed regardless of contracted scope
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.029176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Scope Expansion to Structural Assessment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Scope Expansion to Structural Assessment → Structural Instability Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Structural Instability Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Structural_Load_Calculation_Standard_FireCase
type: StructuralLoadCalculationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: Professional engineering standards bodies
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Structural Load Calculation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:54:03.993754+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Structural Load Calculation Standard
sourcetext: concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
textreferences: concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
usedby: Engineer A during preliminary structural investigation
usedincontext: Provides the technical basis for Engineer A's preliminary assessment that recent structural changes caused roof sag and outward wall lean due to insufficient lateral restraint, grounding the professional judgment that collapse is a danger
version: Current technical standards
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.013386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation Applied in BER Case 07-10
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural modification risk
appliedto: Building owner (Jones)
balancingwith: Regulatory notification obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A should have first notified the current owner (Jones) of structural concerns regarding the barn before or alongside notifying the town supervisor, because Jones was the party directly exposed to the structural risk and had the most immediate ability to take protective action
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The current owner is the party most directly exposed to the safety risk and should receive direct notification, not merely indirect notification through regulatory channels
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
tensionresolution: Direct notification to the affected party is required in addition to regulatory notification, not as a substitute for it
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
textreferences: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.028245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A To Building Owners
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building owners as identifiable third parties directly exposed to structural collapse risk
balancingwith: Client confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful agent obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A directly notified the building owners of the structural collapse risk and recommended bracing, fulfilling the obligation to notify identifiable third parties directly exposed to the hazard, particularly given the county building official's failure to respond
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The building owners, as identifiable third parties directly exposed to the structural collapse hazard, required direct notification from Engineer A, especially given the county building official's failure to respond to the regulatory notification
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
tensionresolution: Third-party notification obligation overrides confidentiality concerns when the third party is directly exposed to a safety hazard; Engineer A correctly notified the building owners
textreferences: Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.021059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice - BER Case 00-5
type: UnlicensedInspectorPerformingEngineeringEvaluationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From public works director's commissioning of retired inspector through evaluation and crutch pile recommendation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public works director
affectedparties: Retired bridge inspector
affectedparties: State engineering licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
stateclass: Unlicensed Inspector Performing Engineering Evaluation State
subject: Retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) performing structural evaluation of hazardous bridge
terminatedby: Not resolved within case facts
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
triggeringevent: Nonengineer public works director directed retired bridge inspector (not an engineer) to examine the bridge
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.018022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Challenge Obligation Applied in BER Case 00-5
type: UnlicensedPracticeProhibitionandChallengeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Retired bridge inspector (non-engineer)
appliedto: State engineering licensure board
balancingwith: Deference to supervisor direction
balancingwith: Employer loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A should have determined whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and if so, reported those activities to the state licensing board
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A non-engineer making structural determinations about a bridge — including recommending specific structural interventions — may constitute the unlicensed practice of engineering, which must be reported to the state licensing board
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
principleclass: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
tensionresolution: The obligation to challenge unlicensed practice is independent of and not overridden by employer direction or political pressure
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.028730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Unlicensed_Practice_Reporting_Standard_Instance
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State engineering licensure boards / NSPE
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (Professional Norm and State Board Rule)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:01.121859+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
textreferences: Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5, referenced in the current case discussion
usedincontext: Invoked in BER Case 00-5 as the standard requiring Engineer A to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities constituted unlicensed practice of engineering and whether reporting to the state board was warranted
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.016574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record - BER Case 07-10
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyAdvisoryWithoutWrittenRecordState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor through Board's determination that written follow-up was required
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones (owner)
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:55:48.178916+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
stateclass: Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record State
subject: Engineer A's verbal-only communication with town supervisor regarding barn structural concern
terminatedby: Board determination that written notification to owner and written confirmation to town supervisor were required
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
triggeringevent: Engineer A verbally contacted town supervisor about structural concern without producing written documentation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.020253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Verbal Notification to Client B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Verbal Notification to Client B → Collapse Risk Remains Unmitigated
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement Applied in BER Case 07-10
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building owner (Jones)
appliedto: Town supervisor
balancingwith: Informality of initial verbal contact
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was required to make a written record of communications with the owner and town supervisor, follow up the verbal communication with written confirmation, and use written communications when setting deadlines for corrective action
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Written documentation creates an unambiguous record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied, and preserves the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation
invokedby: Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
tensionresolution: Written follow-up to verbal communications is required to create an adequate record of safety notification
textreferences: Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns, while continuing to monitor the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.028084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement Implicated By Engineer A Phone Call
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Phone call to county building official
appliedto: Verbal recommendation to building owners
balancingwith: Scope-of-work limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's phone call to the county building official and verbal recommendation to building owners should be supplemented with written documentation — including a written follow-up to the county official after non-response and a written recommendation to building owners — to create an unambiguous and actionable record of the safety notification
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 132
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 132
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T17:58:09.612528+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The written documentation requirement is implicated by Engineer A's reliance on verbal/phone communications for safety notifications; written follow-up is required to ensure the record is clear and actionable, particularly given the county official's non-response
invokedby: Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
tensionresolution: Written documentation requirement applies regardless of scope limitations; Engineer A should document all safety notifications in writing
textreferences: Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
textreferences: Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
textreferences: The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
wasattributedto: Case 132 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.020917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

authorization for bridge replacement before state and federal department reviews
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

barn construction by Engineer A before sale of property to Jones
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

barricades found dumped (Monday) before installation of more permanent barricades
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

bridge inspector telephone call before erection of barricades and signs
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

erection of barricades and signs (Friday) before barricades found dumped in river (Monday)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

fire at building before Engineer A's investigation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

installation of more permanent barricades before publication of press photos
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

issuance of certificate of occupancy before Engineer A's fire investigation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

issuance of certificate of occupancy for barn extension before Engineer A learning of the extension
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

non-engineer public works director decision on crutch piles before Engineer A's observation of traffic and bridge movement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

phone call to county building official before non-return of county building official's call
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

preliminary site investigation studies overlaps environmental, geological, right-of-way studies
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

press publication of photos before receipt of detailed inspection report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

rally and petition presentation before County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

receipt of detailed inspection report before authorization for bridge replacement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

recent structural changes to building before issuance of certificate of occupancy
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

removal of columns and footings (Jones's modification) during barn extension construction
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

sale of property to Jones before Jones's proposed barn extension
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

state and federal department reviews before rally and petition presentation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

town approval of changes before barn extension construction completion
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.037362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction

verbal notification to Client B meets phone call to county building official
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T18:17:34.036702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 132 Extraction