ProEthica Case 135 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.735044
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

1972 Precedent Case Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

1979 Stricter Standard Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

1979 Stricter Standard Established → NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

BER Board Section II.5.a. Implication-Scope Purposive Interpretation
type: SectionII.5.a.Implication-ScopePurposiveInterpretationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Section II.5.a. Implication-Scope Purposive Interpretation Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated advanced capability to purposively interpret Section II.5.a.'s misrepresentation prohibition to encompass implication-based deception — statements not literally false but intentionally designed to create false impressions — grounded in the provision's employer-protection purpose.
casecontext: Interpretation of Section II.5.a. in the context of Engineer A's resume implying sole authorship of jointly-designed products
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Holding that 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. includes implications intended to obscure truth, even where the engineer did not explicitly state sole authorship, based on the provision's purpose of protecting employers from being deceived about engineer competence
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: we interpret the term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter
textreferences: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
textreferences: we interpret the term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.752965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

BER Board Three-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Progressive Code Tightening Synthesis
type: BERThree-PrecedentResumeMisrepresentationProgressiveCodeTighteningSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Three-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Progressive Code Tightening Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board demonstrated advanced capability to synthesize three BER precedents (Cases 72-11, 79-5, and the current case) tracing the progressive tightening of NSPE Code provisions on resume misrepresentation, correctly applying the most current and restrictive Section II.5.a. standard.
casecontext: Board analysis of Engineer A's resume misrepresentation case requiring application of current Section II.5.a. rather than superseded narrower provisions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Systematic review of Case 72-11 (permissible emphasis under old Code 3(e)), Case 79-5 (diploma mill PhD under expanded language), and current case (implied sole authorship under Section II.5.a.), identifying the trajectory of increasingly restrictive code language
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In Case 72-11, John Doe...was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner
textreferences: In Case 72-11, John Doe...was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner
textreferences: In Case 79-5...we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded
textreferences: New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation
textreferences: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.752817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

BER_Case_72-11
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 72-11
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In Case 72-11, John Doe, who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for twelve years…
textreferences: In Case 72-11, John Doe, who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for twelve years…
textreferences: In concluding that Doe was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner, we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration'
textreferences: We emphasized that what we said in Case 72-11 was a matter of degree.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about resume representation limits
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that emphasizing minor experience in a resume is permissible as a matter of degree ('emphasis' vs. 'exaggeration'), provided the engineer can truthfully claim some competence in the area emphasized; distinguished from the current case where Engineer A implied sole authorship of team work
version: 1972
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.735861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

BER_Case_79-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 79-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Case 79-5 involved an engineer who received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1940…
textreferences: Case 79-5 involved an engineer who received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1940…
textreferences: In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances…
textreferences: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about the outer limits of permissible qualification representation
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that listing a degree from a diploma mill as an academic credential constitutes unethical misrepresentation under the expanded Code language; marks the doctrinal shift from 'exaggeration' to 'misleading, deceptive or false statements'
version: 1979
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.736131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 135 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 72-11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 72-11 precedent (1972) before Case 79-5 precedent (1979)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 79-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 79-5 Diploma Mill PhD Engineer
type: ResumeMisrepresentingJob-SeekingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'credentials': 'BS from recognized curriculum, Professional Degree, fraudulent PhD from diploma mill', 'misrepresentation_type': 'Listing diploma-mill PhD as legitimate academic credential without disclosure', 'outcome': 'Found in violation under Case 79-5', 'code_provision': 'Expanded NSPE Code language on misleading/deceptive/false qualification statements'}
caseinvolvement: A registered professional engineer who listed a PhD from a diploma mill (correspondence-only, no attendance or study required) among his academic qualifications in brochures and correspondence without disclosing its nature — found by the Board to be unethical under the expanded Code language prohibiting misleading, deceptive, or false statements regarding professional qualifications.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'precedent_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
sourcetext: he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill'
textreferences: he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill'
textreferences: we held that the newer and broader Code language should be interpreted to prohibit the engineer from citing his Ph.D. degree as an academic credential
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.740237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 79-5 Diploma Mill PhD Engineer Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation
type: ResumeImplication-BasedMisrepresentationProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A registered PE listed a PhD from a diploma mill (correspondence-only, no attendance or study required) among academic qualifications without indicating its nature, creating a false impression of legitimate doctoral credentials.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer (Case 79-5)
obligationclass: Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: The engineer in Case 79-5 was obligated to refrain from listing a diploma-mill PhD among academic qualifications without indicating its nature, as doing so created a misleading implication that the degree was from a legitimate academic institution — constituting misrepresentation under the then-current broader code language prohibiting 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications.'
sourcetext: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill.' The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.
temporalscope: At the time of listing the PhD in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise (Case 79-5)
textreferences: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill.' The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.
textreferences: we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.751561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 79-5 Diploma Mill PhD Engineer Resume Implication Deception Recognition Deficit
type: ResumeImplication-BasedIntentionalDeceptionSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Resume Implication-Based Intentional Deception Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineer in Case 79-5 failed to recognize that listing a diploma-mill PhD among academic qualifications without indicating its nature constituted an implication-based misrepresentation under the expanded code language prohibiting misleading, deceptive or false statements about professional qualifications.
casecontext: Registered professional engineer who received a PhD from an organization regarded by state authorities as a diploma mill and listed it without qualification among academic credentials
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Listing a PhD from a diploma mill (correspondence-only, no attendance or study required) among academic qualifications in brochures and correspondence without indicating its nature, creating a misleading impression of earned doctoral credentials
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer in Case 79-5
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill'
textreferences: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill'
textreferences: The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature
textreferences: we held that the newer and broader Code language should be interpreted to prohibit the engineer from citing his Ph.D. degree as an academic credential
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.753984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 79-5 Diploma Mill PhD Engineer Resume Misrepresentation Recognition
type: DiplomaMillSelf-CertificationAnalogyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Diploma Mill Self-Certification Analogy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The registered PE in Case 79-5 was required to recognize that listing a PhD from a diploma mill on a resume constituted an impermissible misrepresentation of academic qualifications, as the credential was obtained without genuine study and falsely implied substantive doctoral-level education
casecontext: Registered PE listed a PhD from a correspondence-only diploma mill requiring no attendance or study among academic credentials on resume
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: BER Case 79-5 found that listing a diploma mill PhD among academic credentials on a resume constituted misrepresentation of qualifications
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Case 79-5 Registered PE
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 79-5 Engineer Diploma Mill PhD Credential Nature Non-Disclosure
type: Non-AccreditedCredentialNatureDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer with legitimate BS and professional degree also held a PhD from a diploma mill (correspondence-only, no attendance required, regarded by state authorities as a diploma mill); listed the PhD among academic qualifications without indicating its nature; BER found this unethical under the broader post-amendment code language
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer in BER Case 79-5
constraintclass: Non-Accredited Credential Nature Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: The engineer was constrained to disclose the non-accredited, correspondence-only nature of his PhD degree when listing it among academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and professional self-presentations; his failure to indicate its nature while listing it as an academic credential constituted a misleading, deceptive, or false statement regarding professional qualifications under the then-current code provision.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section 3(e) (as amended); BER Case No. 79-5
sourcetext: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill.' The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.
temporalscope: Throughout the period during which the engineer listed the diploma-mill PhD in professional materials
textreferences: In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill.' The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.
textreferences: In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.752210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Case 79-5 precedent (1979) before NSPE Code revision introducing Section II.5.a
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

CausalLink_Collaborative Product Design P
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

CausalLink_Decision to Seek New Employmen
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

CausalLink_Implying Sole Resume Authorshi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

CausalLink_Omitting Team Credit Attributi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

CausalLink_Submitting Misleading Resume
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Collaborative Credit Omission Misrepresentation Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Resume
type: CollaborativeCreditOmissionMisrepresentationProhibitioninEmploymentSeeking
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
appliedto: Five Staff Engineers Joint Design Team Members
appliedto: Six-member team's jointly-designed patented products
balancingwith: Competitive employment-seeking interests
balancingwith: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A omits the five co-equal team members from his resume description of jointly-designed and jointly-patented products, creating the false impression of sole personal design responsibility for work that was explicitly credited to a six-member team, in order to enhance his employment prospects with Employer Y
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: This case is the paradigmatic instance of collaborative credit omission misrepresentation: Engineer A was one of six co-equal contributors, was explicitly credited as such, and yet presented the work as his personal individual achievement; the principle requires that he identify the team context and his role within it
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Collaborative Credit Omission Misrepresentation Prohibition in Employment Seeking
sourcetext: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
tensionresolution: The Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle does not extend to omitting co-equal contributors entirely; Engineer A's conduct is not permissible emphasis but prohibited misrepresentation of collaborative credit
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.746790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Collaborative Credit Omission — Engineer A Failure to Credit Five Co-Designers
type: CollaborativeCreditOmissionMisrepresentationProhibitioninEmploymentSeeking
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Resume attribution of jointly-designed patented products
balancingwith: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A violated Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to the five other staff engineers who jointly designed the patented products; the Board held that Engineer A had an obligation to express that the design work was a team effort, though not necessarily to name the individual team members
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to credit collaborative work does not require naming co-contributors on a resume, but does require acknowledging the team-based nature of the work rather than allowing an individual-credit implication to stand
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Collaborative Credit Omission Misrepresentation Prohibition in Employment Seeking
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
tensionresolution: The minimum compliance standard — noting team effort without naming individuals — balances the engineer's legitimate interest in presenting qualifications favorably against the obligation to accurately represent collaborative contributions
textreferences: By noting such, we believe that in the context of the fact in this case, Engineer A would be in compliance with the spirit and intent of Section III.10.a.
textreferences: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
textreferences: While we certainly are not suggesting that Engineer A indicate the names of the five other engineers on his employment resume, we do believe that Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.750620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Collaborative Patent Portfolio Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Collaborative Product Design Participation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Collaborative Product Design Participation → Collaborative Patent Portfolio Created
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of the products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's implied sole authorship was unethical, the analysis reveals a dual harm that the Board did not fully articulate: the misrepresentation simultaneously deceived Employer Y about the scope of Engineer A's individual capabilities and erased the professional contributions of five co-equal engineers who held identical formal rank and shared patent credit. These two harms are analytically distinct. The harm to Employer Y is prospective and transactional — it distorts a hiring decision by inflating one candidate's apparent individual design capacity. The harm to the five co-designers is retrospective and reputational — their contributions to a documented patent portfolio are rendered invisible in the professional marketplace without their knowledge or consent. The Board's conclusion addresses only the former harm implicitly, through the lens of employer protection, but the NSPE Code's intellectual integrity obligations — particularly the duty to give credit where credit is due — independently condemn the latter harm regardless of whether any employer is deceived. A complete ethical analysis requires treating both injuries as independent violations, not merely as two facets of a single misrepresentation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that implying sole authorship is unethical does not resolve the affirmative disclosure question: what exactly must Engineer A include on a compliant resume? The ethical floor established by the Board's finding — do not imply sole authorship — does not automatically define the ethical ceiling of required disclosure. A minimally compliant resume might simply avoid the misleading implication by using language such as 'participated in the design of a series of patented products as a member of a six-engineer team.' This formulation satisfies the prohibition on misrepresentation without requiring Engineer A to quantify each member's relative contribution, which may be genuinely indeterminate given equal formal rank and shared patent credit. However, if Engineer A made a disproportionately large substantive contribution to specific patents — even without a formally recognized lead role — a more complete disclosure would be ethically preferable, though the Board's framework does not compel it. The ethical obligation is therefore best understood as a sliding scale: the greater the gap between the implied individual contribution and the actual individual contribution, the more affirmative disclosure is required to close that gap. At minimum, team composition must be acknowledged; at maximum, relative contribution should be characterized where it is meaningfully distinguishable.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 402
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's analysis implicitly treats the ethical violation as complete upon submission of the misleading resume, but a fuller analysis must address whether subsequent oral clarification during the interview process — or Employer Y's independent verification through reference checks — can retroactively cure the initial written misrepresentation. The answer, properly reasoned, is that neither subsequent clarification nor third-party verification eliminates the ethical violation, though each may mitigate its practical consequences. The ethical breach is located in the act of submitting a document designed to create a false impression in the mind of the reader at the moment of reading. That act is complete and irremediable as a matter of professional ethics regardless of what follows, because the NSPE Code's prohibition on misleading implications is not conditioned on whether the implication is ultimately believed or acted upon. Employer Y's independent verification capability does not transfer Engineer A's ethical responsibility to Employer Y; the Code places the burden of accurate self-representation squarely on the engineer, not on the employer's screening diligence. Similarly, a verbal correction during an interview, while ethically commendable as a partial remedy, does not undo the initial submission of a misleading document — it merely limits the duration of the deception. The ethical violation therefore stands independently of downstream events, and the Board's framework, properly extended, supports this conclusion.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's reliance on the progressive tightening of the NSPE Code — from prohibiting false statements to prohibiting misleading implications — reflects a Kantian expansion of the duty of honesty that deserves explicit articulation. Under the earlier code standard, a technically accurate statement that created a false impression might have survived ethical scrutiny if no literal falsehood was uttered. The progressive amendment to Section II.5.a. closes this gap by recognizing that the reasonable inferences a recipient draws from a representation are morally attributable to the person who crafted the representation, particularly when that person is a sophisticated professional who understands how resumes function as screening instruments. Engineer A, as a licensed engineer, cannot plausibly claim ignorance of the inference that a hiring authority will draw from an unqualified listing of patented products on a personal resume. The intent to create that inference — even if Engineer A stopped short of explicitly claiming sole authorship — is itself the ethical violation. This means the Board's conclusion is not merely about what Engineer A said, but about what Engineer A strategically chose not to say, knowing that the omission would do the misleading work that an explicit false claim would have done more transparently. The Code's progressive standard thus functions as a prohibition on artful misrepresentation, not merely on clumsy falsehood.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion does not address the threshold question of whether a disproportionately large individual contribution within a formally equal team could ever justify resume language that foregrounds personal responsibility without explicit team attribution. This question is not merely hypothetical — it has practical significance for how engineers in collaborative environments represent their work. The ethical framework established by the Board and the precedent cases suggests that formal equality of rank and shared patent credit creates a strong presumption against implying sole or primary authorship, but this presumption is not necessarily irrebuttable. If Engineer A could demonstrate — through documented evidence such as design notebooks, internal communications, or supervisor assessments — that their individual contribution was substantially greater than that of the other five engineers, a resume formulation emphasizing personal leadership of the design effort might be defensible, provided it still acknowledged the collaborative context. However, in the absence of any formally recognized differentiation — such as a lead engineer designation, a disproportionate share of patent claims, or documented supervisory responsibility — the equal-rank, equal-credit structure of the team forecloses any implication of individual primacy. The ethical line is therefore not drawn at the boundary between sole authorship and team participation, but at the boundary between documented individual distinction and undifferentiated collective contribution.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Even if Engineer A made a uniquely large or disproportionate contribution to the joint design work, the ethical violation identified by the Board would not be extinguished. The case facts establish that all six engineers held equal formal rank and shared equal patent credit. In the absence of any formally recognized differentiation in role or contribution — such as a lead designer designation, a coordinating title, or a documented record of disproportionate inventive contribution — Engineer A had no legitimate basis to imply sole authorship. A subjective belief that one contributed more than peers does not, by itself, authorize a resume representation that erases the credited contributions of five co-equal engineers. The ethical standard is not calibrated to the engineer's private self-assessment of relative contribution but to the objective record of credited authorship. Until and unless a formal mechanism exists to document and recognize differential contribution within a jointly credited team, the ethical obligation remains to represent the work as collaborative. Disproportionate contribution might, however, be a mitigating factor in assessing the severity of the violation if it were objectively verifiable, but it would not convert an implied sole-authorship claim into a permissible representation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation that goes beyond merely refraining from implying sole authorship. Under the progressive tightening of the NSPE Code — particularly as reflected in Section II.5.a and the Board's synthesis of Cases 72-11, 79-5, and 86-6 — the prohibition extends to misleading implications and material omissions, not just affirmative false statements. This means Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose, in some reasonably clear form on the resume, that the patented products were the result of a joint team effort. The minimum ethically compliant disclosure would be language that signals collaborative authorship — for example, identifying the work as team-designed or noting participation as one of six co-equal engineers. The obligation is not merely to avoid saying 'I alone designed these products' but to ensure that the overall impression conveyed by the resume accurately reflects the collaborative reality. Silence about team composition, when the natural inference drawn by a prospective employer would be individual authorship, constitutes a prohibited material omission. The affirmative disclosure obligation is therefore structural: it must be embedded in the resume itself, not deferred to a verbal clarification during an interview.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Employer Y bears an independent practical interest in verifying resume claims, and the Board's analysis implicitly acknowledges this by framing the honesty obligation in part as a protection of the prospective employer's right to accurate information. However, Employer Y's capacity or failure to independently verify the collaborative nature of the design work does not mitigate or shift Engineer A's ethical culpability. The ethical violation is complete at the moment Engineer A submits a misleading resume, regardless of whether Employer Y is deceived in fact. This is consistent with the principle that misrepresentation is an act-based violation, not a harm-based one — the wrong lies in the deliberate or reckless creation of a false impression, not solely in the downstream consequences of that impression. Employer Y's verification capability is a practical safeguard, not an ethical substitute for Engineer A's honesty obligation. To hold otherwise would effectively transfer the burden of truthfulness from the representing engineer to the receiving employer, which is incompatible with the professional integrity standards the NSPE Code imposes on licensed engineers.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The Board's ethical finding does not preclude, and in fact logically supports, the possibility of professional consequences beyond the ethical determination itself. Depending on the jurisdiction, resume misrepresentation of this character — particularly where it involves patented work with documented co-inventors — could constitute grounds for disciplinary action by a state engineering licensure board, potentially including license suspension or revocation. Civil liability to the five co-designers whose contributions were effectively erased is a more complex question, but is not foreclosed: if Engineer A's misrepresentation resulted in professional opportunities, compensation, or reputational advancement that would not have been obtained had the collaborative nature of the work been disclosed, the co-designers may have cognizable claims grounded in unjust enrichment or misappropriation of professional credit. The Board's analysis, while ethically complete on its own terms, does not address these downstream harms to the five co-designers, which represent a significant gap. The erasure of five engineers' contributions from a series of patented products is not merely an abstract ethical wrong — it has concrete professional consequences for those individuals in their own career trajectories, and a comprehensive analysis of the case's ethical stakes should acknowledge this dimension explicitly.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The principle of contextual resume emphasis established in Case 72-11 does not conflict irreconcilably with the prohibition on technically true but misleading statements — rather, the two principles operate on different sides of a threshold that the Board's progressive code analysis helps define. Case 72-11 permits an engineer to restructure a resume to foreground certain experiences over others, provided the overall impression conveyed remains accurate and does not cross into competence deception. The critical distinction is between emphasis — which selects and highlights true facts — and implication — which causes a reasonable reader to draw a false inference. Engineer A's conduct falls on the wrong side of this line because the natural and foreseeable inference drawn by Employer Y from the resume as structured was that Engineer A was individually responsible for the patented designs. The absence of any team attribution language, combined with the prominence given to the patents, transforms permissible emphasis into prohibited implication. Case 72-11 does not authorize omissions that are material to the accurate understanding of the nature of the credited work; it authorizes only the selective ordering and weighting of truthful, non-misleading information.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The tension between intent-based severity calibration and the omission-as-misrepresentation principle is real but resolvable within the Board's framework. The Board acknowledges that the ethical severity of a misrepresentation may be calibrated based on whether it was intentional or inadvertent — a distinction that affects the degree of culpability assigned. However, this calibration operates at the level of sanction severity, not at the level of whether a violation occurred at all. Under the progressive code standard reflected in Section II.5.a, a material omission constitutes a prohibited misrepresentation regardless of intent, because the standard focuses on the impression created in the mind of the recipient, not on the subjective state of the representing engineer. Intent therefore determines how seriously the violation is treated — an intentional misleading implication is more culpable than an inadvertent one — but it does not determine whether the omission crosses the ethical threshold. In Engineer A's case, the Board's analysis suggests the implication was deliberate rather than inadvertent, which places the conduct at the more serious end of the culpability spectrum and forecloses any mitigation based on inadvertence.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The interest of Employer Y in receiving accurate resume information and the interest of the five co-designers in receiving accurate professional credit are not in conflict — they are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Both interests are violated by the same act: Engineer A's misleading resume representation. The Board's analysis frames the honesty obligation primarily through the lens of employer protection, which is the most direct and legally cognizable harm. However, the intellectual integrity interest of the five co-designers is an independent ethical concern grounded in Section III.10.a's obligation to give credit where credit is due. Neither interest should subordinate the other in the ethical analysis; rather, the co-designers' interest provides an additional and independent basis for finding the conduct unethical, beyond the employer-protection rationale. A complete ethical analysis would recognize that Engineer A's resume misrepresentation simultaneously wrongs two distinct classes of affected parties — the prospective employer who is deceived about the nature of the qualifications being represented, and the five co-engineers whose professional contributions are effectively appropriated without acknowledgment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed to fulfill the categorical duty of honesty. The Kantian framework requires that one act only on maxims that could be universalized without contradiction. If every engineer in a collaborative team implied sole authorship of jointly designed work on their resume, the institution of resume-based professional credentialing would collapse — prospective employers could place no reliance on resume representations, and the entire system of professional qualification disclosure would be undermined. The maxim underlying Engineer A's conduct — 'imply sole authorship of jointly credited work when doing so advances my career interests' — cannot be universalized without self-defeating consequences. Furthermore, Engineer A's conduct treats both Employer Y and the five co-designers as mere means to an end: Employer Y is manipulated into a hiring decision based on false impressions, and the co-designers' contributions are instrumentalized as a credential-building resource without their knowledge or consent. The deontological verdict is therefore unambiguous: Engineer A violated the categorical duty of honesty regardless of the competitive pressures of the employment market.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a consequentialist standpoint, the aggregate harms produced by Engineer A's misleading resume representation substantially outweigh any personal career benefit obtained. The harms operate across three distinct dimensions. First, Employer Y faces a misallocation of its hiring decision — it may select Engineer A based on an inflated assessment of individual design capability that does not reflect the collaborative reality of the work. Second, the five co-designers suffer a concrete professional harm: their contributions to a series of patented products are erased from the professional record that Employer Y receives, potentially affecting those engineers' own career prospects if Employer Y or others in the industry form impressions about the design team's composition. Third, the systemic harm to the engineering profession is significant — if resume misrepresentation of this kind becomes normalized, the reliability of professional credentials erodes, increasing verification costs for all employers and disadvantaging honest engineers who accurately represent collaborative work. Against these harms, the personal career benefit to Engineer A — a potentially more favorable hiring outcome — is both modest in magnitude and illegitimately obtained. The consequentialist calculus therefore strongly supports the Board's ethical finding.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's decision to structure the resume in a way that obscured the collaborative nature of the design work reveals a deficit in two core professional virtues: intellectual honesty and integrity. A person of genuine professional integrity would recognize that the patents represent a shared achievement and would feel an internal obligation — independent of any external rule — to represent that achievement accurately. The fact that Engineer A instead chose a presentation calculated to maximize personal credit at the expense of accurate attribution suggests that competitive self-interest was allowed to override the internalized commitment to truthfulness that characterizes a virtuous professional. This is not merely a technical rule violation; it reflects a character disposition that, if habitual, would systematically undermine the trustworthiness on which professional engineering relationships depend. Virtue ethics also highlights the relational dimension of the wrong: a virtuous engineer would recognize obligations not only to prospective employers but to colleagues whose contributions deserve acknowledgment. Engineer A's conduct fails on both counts, suggesting that the ethical deficit is not situational but dispositional.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: The NSPE Code's progressive tightening of resume representation standards — from prohibiting false statements to prohibiting misleading implications — does reflect a Kantian recognition that the duty of honesty extends to the reasonable inferences a recipient will draw, not merely to the literal truth of individual statements. A statement can be literally true in each of its component parts while simultaneously creating a false overall impression; the Code's evolution acknowledges that this form of deception is ethically equivalent to an outright false statement because it produces the same epistemic harm in the recipient. Engineer A's conduct exemplifies precisely this category of violation: no individual claim on the resume may have been literally false, but the overall impression conveyed — that Engineer A was individually responsible for the patented designs — was false in a material and foreseeable way. The expanded Kantian duty of honesty requires that the representing party take responsibility not only for what they say but for what a reasonable recipient will understand them to have said. Engineer A violated this expanded duty by structuring the resume to exploit the gap between literal truth and reasonable inference.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: Had Engineer A listed the patented products with an explicit notation such as 'co-designed with a five-member engineering team,' the resume would almost certainly have been ethically compliant. Such a disclosure would have satisfied the affirmative obligation to accurately represent the collaborative nature of the work, eliminated the misleading implication of sole authorship, and still permitted Engineer A to highlight personal participation in a significant body of patented design work. This counterfactual illustrates that the ethical violation was not inherent in claiming credit for the patents — Engineer A was legitimately credited as a co-inventor — but in the manner of presentation that erased the collaborative context. The Board's finding therefore does not prohibit engineers from listing jointly credited work on their resumes; it requires only that the collaborative nature of the work be disclosed in a way that prevents a reasonable reader from drawing the false inference of sole authorship. The ethical path was available and required only a modest addition to the resume language.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: The ethical violation committed by Engineer A in submitting a misleading resume is complete and irremediable as an independent act, regardless of whether Employer Y independently verified the team-based nature of the design work before making a hiring decision. The violation is constituted by the act of submission itself — the deliberate creation and transmission of a document designed to convey a false impression — not by the downstream consequence of a successful deception. Even if Employer Y conducted thorough reference checks and discovered the collaborative reality before extending an offer, Engineer A would still have submitted a misleading resume and would still have violated the ethical obligations imposed by Section II.5.a. This conclusion is consistent with the act-based rather than harm-based character of the ethical prohibition: the wrong lies in the misrepresentation, not solely in its effectiveness. Employer Y's verification capability is therefore ethically irrelevant to the question of whether a violation occurred, though it may be relevant to the practical consequences that flow from the violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: A formally recognized lead designer role — even among engineers of equal formal rank — would shift the ethical calculus, but would not by itself render an implied sole-authorship claim permissible. If Engineer A had held a documented coordinating or lead role, it would be accurate and permissible to represent that role on the resume — for example, 'served as lead designer within a six-member engineering team.' This representation would be truthful, would convey Engineer A's elevated contribution, and would simultaneously disclose the collaborative context. What it would not authorize is the complete omission of the team context, because even a lead designer does not bear sole responsibility for work that was jointly executed and jointly credited. The threshold at which implying primary responsibility becomes permissible is therefore not a function of contribution magnitude alone, but of whether the representation accurately captures both the nature of the individual role and the collaborative structure within which it was performed. No level of individual contribution, short of actual sole authorship, would make the omission of team composition ethically permissible when the natural inference drawn by a prospective employer would be individual rather than collaborative design responsibility.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: A subsequent oral clarification during a job interview would not retroactively cure the ethical violation embedded in the submission of a misleading written resume. The ethical breach is constituted by the act of submitting the misleading document, which is an independent wrong that occurs at the moment of submission. The resume functions as a formal professional representation that Employer Y relies upon as a baseline document for evaluating Engineer A's qualifications; its misleading character is not contingent on whether a subsequent conversation corrects the false impression. Moreover, an oral clarification during an interview — prompted perhaps by the interviewer's questions rather than by Engineer A's voluntary disclosure — does not demonstrate the proactive commitment to honesty that the NSPE Code requires. It may mitigate the practical harm to Employer Y by correcting the false impression before a hiring decision is made, and it may be relevant to assessing the overall severity of the ethical violation, but it does not eliminate the violation itself. The ethical obligation was to submit an accurate resume in the first instance; having failed to do so, Engineer A cannot retroactively satisfy that obligation through subsequent oral disclosure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: The principle that competitive employment pressure provides no justification for misrepresentation does not conflict with the omission materiality threshold in any way that would permit Engineer A's conduct. The suggestion that competitive market norms might influence what counts as a material omission — because all engineers in a competitive market selectively present their credentials — is ethically untenable. Market norms of selective presentation do not define the materiality threshold for ethical purposes; the NSPE Code sets that threshold independently of market practice. If competitive norms permitted the omission of team composition information, the result would be a race to the bottom in which increasingly misleading resume presentations became normalized, ultimately destroying the informational value of professional credentials for all employers. The materiality of the omission is determined by whether a reasonable prospective employer would consider the omitted information significant to the hiring decision — and the collaborative versus individual nature of credited design work is unambiguously material by that standard. Competitive pressure is therefore not a factor that adjusts the materiality threshold; it is simply an impermissible justification for crossing it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between contextual resume emphasis permissibility — as established in Case 72-11 — and the prohibition on technically true but misleading statements was resolved by treating selective emphasis as ethically permissible only when it foregrounds a genuine individual contribution without simultaneously erasing the collaborative context that defines the scope of that contribution. In Case 72-11, John Doe restructured his resume to highlight managerial experience he actually held, even if it was a minor portion of his work; the emphasis distorted proportion but did not falsify the nature of his role. Engineer A's conduct crossed a categorically different line: by implying sole authorship of jointly patented products, he did not merely emphasize his participation — he transformed a shared credit into an exclusive one. The case teaches that the permissible boundary of resume emphasis ends precisely where the reasonable inference drawn by a recipient diverges from the factual record of who did what. Emphasis that changes the qualitative character of a contribution — from collaborative to individual — is not selective framing; it is misrepresentation by implication.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The interaction between the intentional versus inadvertent misrepresentation principle and the omission materiality threshold principle reveals an important asymmetry in how the NSPE Code allocates ethical culpability. The Board's analysis acknowledges that calibrating severity based on intent is appropriate — an inadvertent inaccuracy warrants correction while an intentional deception warrants condemnation — but the progressive tightening of the Code under Section II.5.a. establishes that a material omission constitutes a prohibited misrepresentation regardless of whether the engineer subjectively intended to deceive. These two principles are not in conflict so much as they operate on different axes: intent governs the degree of moral culpability and the severity of appropriate professional consequences, while omission materiality governs whether a violation occurred at all. In Engineer A's case, the omission of team composition from a resume listing jointly patented products is objectively material because it directly affects Employer Y's assessment of Engineer A's independent design capability — the very qualification at issue in the hiring decision. The case teaches that engineers cannot escape an ethical finding by claiming inadvertence when the omitted fact is one that any reasonable engineer in their position would recognize as material to the recipient's evaluation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The principle protecting employers from deceptive resume representations and the principle of intellectual integrity in authorship — which protects the five co-designers' right to credit — are not genuinely in conflict in this case; rather, they are mutually reinforcing and converge on the same ethical conclusion from different directions. The employer-protection principle focuses on Employer Y's right to make an informed hiring decision based on accurate representations of individual capability. The authorship integrity principle focuses on the five co-equal staff engineers whose contributions were effectively erased from the professional record. Both principles are violated by the same act: Engineer A's implied sole authorship. The case teaches that resume misrepresentation in collaborative engineering work is not a victimless distortion of emphasis — it simultaneously deceives the prospective employer about the candidate's independent capabilities and inflicts a dignitary and professional harm on co-contributors whose equal credit is appropriated without acknowledgment. When both the employer-protection and authorship-integrity principles point toward the same prohibition, the ethical case against the conduct is doubly grounded, and neither interest need be subordinated to the other to reach the correct conclusion.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.397987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility — Case 72-11 John Doe
type: ContextualResumeEmphasisPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Resume rewriting to emphasize managerial experience over technical design background
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: John Doe's rewriting of his resume to emphasize minor managerial and administrative experience was held permissible because it reflected a genuine, if minor, aspect of his actual experience and did not deceive the employer as to his actual competence to perform the role sought
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board characterized Doe's emphasis as 'something less than an exaggeration' and 'a degree of emphasis' — an established and accepted sales technique — because Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the areas emphasized, and the employer was not misled as to competence for the role
invokedby: John Doe Case 72-11 Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis
tensionresolution: Permissible emphasis distinguished from impermissible misrepresentation by the presence of genuine underlying competence and absence of deliberate intent to obscure truth
textreferences: this is an established and accepted form of sales technique in which the seller proclaims all of the virtues of his product and conveniently ignores its less desirable features
textreferences: we emphasized that what we said in Case 72-11 was a matter of degree
textreferences: we found that Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical areas of the employment even though Doe strongly emphasized its extent and level
textreferences: we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.749662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A list the jointly patented products on his resume in a manner that implies personal design responsibility, or must he affirmatively disclose the team-based nature of the work?
focus: Engineer A must decide how to represent his participation in a series of jointly patented products on his resume submitted to Employer Y, where all six team members held equal rank and shared patent credit. The core tension is between presenting credentials in the most favorable light versus accurately disclosing the collaborative nature of the design work.
option1: List the patented products with explicit notation of collaborative authorship — e.g., 'co-designed with a five-member engineering team' — so that Employer Y can accurately assess Engineer A's individual contribution without drawing the false inference of sole design responsibility.
option2: List the patented products on the resume under Engineer A's individual credentials without team attribution language, relying on the standard resume convention that patent listings reflect participation rather than sole authorship, and leaving clarification to the interview process.
option3: Note that the patented products resulted from a team effort without naming individual co-designers, consistent with the minimum disclosure standard — acknowledging collaborative context while preserving Engineer A's ability to highlight personal participation in a significant patent portfolio.
role label: Engineer A Resume-Submitting Job-Seeking Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A treat competitive employment pressure as a justification for omitting team context from his resume, or must he refrain from misrepresentation regardless of competitive market conditions?
focus: Engineer A must determine whether the intense competitive pressure of the engineering employment market justifies structuring his resume to foreground personal credit for jointly patented products without disclosing the team context, or whether competitive pressure is ethically irrelevant to the misrepresentation analysis. This decision point also addresses whether selective emphasis of genuine participation crosses into prohibited implication of sole authorship.
option1: Refrain from using competitive employment pressure as justification for omitting team context, and structure the resume to accurately reflect the collaborative nature of the patented design work even if doing so is less advantageous in a competitive market.
option2: Structure the resume according to prevailing competitive market conventions for patent listings, treating individual patent attribution as an understood industry shorthand for participation rather than sole authorship, and relying on employer verification to correct any misimpression.
option3: Foreground Engineer A's genuine individual contribution to the patented design work — such as specific technical responsibilities within the team — while still disclosing the collaborative context, thereby competing effectively without crossing into misrepresentation.
role label: Engineer A Competitive-Pressure-Invoking Job-Seeking Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Does Engineer A's selective foregrounding of patent participation without team attribution constitute permissible resume emphasis under Case 72-11, or does it constitute prohibited misrepresentation by implication under Section II.5.a?
focus: The Board must determine whether Engineer A's selective emphasis of his participation in jointly patented products — without explicitly claiming sole authorship but without disclosing team composition — falls within the permissible zone of contextual resume emphasis established in Case 72-11, or whether it crosses into prohibited misrepresentation by implication under the progressive NSPE Code standard. This decision point addresses the boundary between permissible selective framing and prohibited misleading implication.
option1: Treat the selective foregrounding of patent participation as permissible contextual resume emphasis under Case 72-11, reasoning that Engineer A genuinely participated in the patented design work and is merely highlighting that genuine experience without making an explicit false claim of sole authorship.
option2: Determine that Engineer A's selective framing crosses from permissible emphasis into prohibited misrepresentation by implication, because the natural and foreseeable inference drawn by Employer Y — that Engineer A was individually responsible for the patented designs — diverges materially from the factual record of shared team credit.
option3: Apply the competence-deception boundary test from Case 72-11 to determine whether the emphasis deceived Employer Y about Engineer A's actual competence for the role sought — finding a violation only if the implied individual design capability materially exceeds Engineer A's actual individual capability, and not merely because team context was omitted.
role label: Engineer A Selective-Emphasis Resume-Framing Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Does Employer Y's capacity to independently verify resume claims mitigate Engineer A's ethical culpability for submitting a misleading resume, or is the ethical violation complete and irremediable upon submission regardless of downstream verification?
focus: The Board must determine whether Employer Y's independent capacity to verify the team-based nature of Engineer A's design work through reference checks or other means mitigates or shifts any portion of Engineer A's ethical culpability for submitting a misleading resume, and whether the ethical violation is complete upon submission regardless of downstream verification or harm.
option1: Determine that Engineer A's ethical violation is fully constituted at the moment of submitting the misleading resume, regardless of whether Employer Y independently verified the team-based nature of the work or was actually deceived in making a hiring decision.
option2: Recognize that Employer Y's independent verification capacity and residual obligation to seek clarification of ambiguous resume claims partially shifts the ethical burden, mitigating Engineer A's culpability when the prospective employer has reasonable means to discover the collaborative nature of the work.
option3: Treat the ethical violation as contingent on whether Employer Y was actually deceived and made a hiring decision based on the false impression of sole authorship — finding no violation where Employer Y discovered the collaborative reality through reference checks before extending an offer.
role label: Engineer A Act-of-Submission Ethical Violation Assessor
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the Board treat Engineer A's misleading resume as a single misrepresentation violation against Employer Y, or as two analytically distinct violations — one against Employer Y under Section II.5.a and one against the five co-designers under Section III.10.a?
focus: The Board must determine whether the dual harm caused by Engineer A's misleading resume — the prospective transactional harm to Employer Y through inflated assessment of individual design capability, and the retrospective reputational harm to the five co-designers whose contributions were erased — should be treated as a single misrepresentation violation or as two analytically distinct and independently cognizable ethical wrongs, each grounded in separate NSPE Code provisions.
option1: Treat Engineer A's misleading resume as constituting two analytically distinct violations — a misrepresentation against Employer Y under Section II.5.a and an independent failure to give credit where credit is due to the five co-designers under Section III.10.a — each grounded in separate Code provisions protecting different interests.
option2: Analyze the misleading resume as a single misrepresentation violation focused on the employer-protection rationale under Section II.5.a, treating the harm to the five co-designers as a secondary consequence of the primary violation rather than an independently cognizable ethical wrong.
option3: Frame the primary ethical violation as the failure to give credit where credit is due under Section III.10.a — treating the harm to the five co-designers as the central wrong — and analyze the employer deception as a secondary consequence, reversing the Board's typical employer-protection framing.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Dual-Harm Analyst
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Under the progressive NSPE Code standard, does Engineer A's omission of team context constitute a prohibited misrepresentation regardless of intent, or does the intent-versus-inadvertence distinction determine whether a violation occurred at all?
focus: The Board must determine how the progressive tightening of the NSPE Code — from prohibiting false statements under earlier standards to prohibiting misleading implications under Section II.5.a — applies to Engineer A's conduct, and whether the intent-versus-inadvertence distinction affects whether a violation occurred or only the severity of the sanction. This decision point addresses the reconciliation of the intentional deception principle with the omission materiality standard under the progressive code.
option1: Determine that the omission of team composition constitutes a prohibited misrepresentation under the progressive code standard regardless of whether Engineer A intended to deceive, because the standard focuses on the impression created in Employer Y's mind and the omitted information is objectively material to the hiring decision.
option2: Limit the ethical violation finding to cases of intentional deception, treating inadvertent omissions of team context as warranting correction rather than condemnation, and finding no violation where Engineer A did not subjectively intend to create a false impression of sole authorship.
option3: Find a violation based on the objective materiality of the omission under the progressive code standard, but calibrate the severity of the ethical finding and the appropriateness of professional consequences based on whether the omission was intentional or inadvertent — treating intent as relevant to sanction but not to whether a violation occurred.
role label: Engineer A Progressive-Code Intentional-Omission Assessor
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Decision to Seek New Employment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Diploma Mill PhD Implication — Case 79-5 Misrepresentation by Omission of Nature
type: Implication-as-MisrepresentationinProfessionalQualificationDocuments
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Academic credential listing in professional brochures and correspondence
balancingwith: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: An engineer listing a PhD from a diploma mill among academic qualifications without indicating its nature created a misleading implication that the degree represented genuine academic achievement, violating the expanded code prohibition on misleading, deceptive, or false statements regarding professional qualifications
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The listing of the diploma mill PhD, while literally accurate as a statement of degree receipt, created a false implication about the nature and rigor of the academic credential; the Board held that the expanded code language required disclosure of the degree's nature to prevent misleading implication
invokedby: Case 79-5 Diploma Mill PhD Engineer
principleclass: Implication-as-Misrepresentation in Professional Qualification Documents
sourcetext: In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
tensionresolution: The implication created by listing the degree without qualification was held to cross the line from permissible emphasis into prohibited misleading implication, given the expanded code language
textreferences: In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.749962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Doe Resume Emphasis Permissible Boundary Case 72-11
type: ResumeEmphasisPermissibleBoundaryNon-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Aerospace design engineer laid off after 12 years, advised to seek managerial positions, rewrote resume to emphasize minor managerial experience; BER found no violation as a matter of degree — emphasis rather than exaggeration
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: John Doe (Case 72-11)
constraintclass: Resume Emphasis Permissible Boundary Non-Deception Constraint
constraintstatement: Doe was constrained to ensure that his resume restructuring — emphasizing minor managerial experience over dominant technical design experience — did not cross from permissible emphasis into exaggeration or misrepresentation of his actual competence to perform the managerial responsibilities sought, with the constraint satisfied because Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative areas even though he strongly emphasized its extent and level.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code old Section 3(c); BER Case No. 72-11
sourcetext: In concluding that Doe was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner, we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis.
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission for managerial/administrative positions
textreferences: In Case 72-11, we found that Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical areas of the employment even though Doe strongly emphasized its extent and level.
textreferences: In concluding that Doe was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner, we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis.
textreferences: We noted that this is an established and accepted form of sales technique in which the seller proclaims all of the virtues of his product and conveniently ignores its less desirable features.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.752038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Doe Resume Selective Emphasis State
type: ResumeExperienceEmphasisReframingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Doe's repeated rejection for positions through his rewriting of the resume and obtaining new employment
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Prospective employers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:26.461789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:26.461789+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility
stateclass: Resume Experience Emphasis Reframing State
subject: Engineer Doe's employment resume restructuring to emphasize minor managerial experience over dominant technical design background
terminatedby: Doe obtaining new employment in his general field of technical expertise
textreferences: Doe devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility
textreferences: this is an established and accepted form of sales technique in which the seller proclaims all of the virtues of his product and conveniently ignores its less desirable features
textreferences: we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis
triggeringevent: Employment counselor advice that Doe's only opportunity lay in management/administration roles, combined with repeated rejection due to resume showing lack of such experience
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.739489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Doe rewriting his resume before Doe obtaining new job
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Doe's layoff from aerospace company before Doe's multi-month job search
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Doe's multi-month job search before Doe rewriting his resume
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Employer X Former Engineering Employer
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship_to_engineer_a': 'Former employer', 'team_size': 'Six staff engineers of equal rank'}
caseinvolvement: Employer X is the organization where Engineer A and the five-member team were employed as staff engineers and jointly designed the patented products. The misrepresentation concerns work performed under Employer X's employment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Five-Member Joint Design Team'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: As an employee for Employer X, Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
textreferences: As an employee for Employer X, Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.739018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Employer Y Prospective Employer Resume Verification Inquiry
type: ProspectiveEmployerResumeVerificationInquiryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prospective Employer Resume Verification Inquiry Capability
capabilitystatement: Employer Y, as the prospective engineering employer evaluating Engineer A's resume, was required to recognize ambiguity in Engineer A's patent design credit claims and to pursue targeted clarifying inquiries about team composition and individual role before making hiring decisions based on those claims
casecontext: Employer Y evaluated Engineer A's resume containing implied sole authorship of jointly-patented products and bore a residual verification obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Employer Y received a resume implying sole design credit for jointly-patented products and bore a residual obligation to seek clarification of the scope and nature of Engineer A's contribution
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Employer Y
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Employer Y Prospective Engineering Hiring Authority
type: EngineeringFirmHiringAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'relationship_to_engineer_a': 'Prospective employer', 'decision_context': 'Hiring decision based on resume representations'}
caseinvolvement: Employer Y is the prospective employer receiving Engineer A's resume containing misrepresentations about individual design credit, and bears obligations to conduct due diligence on candidate qualification representations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A is seeking employment with Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A is seeking employment with Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.739180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Employer Y Resume-Deceived Prospective Employer Obligation to Verify Qualifications
type: DisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Employer Y receives Engineer A's resume implying sole personal responsibility for jointly-designed patented products and is the party the NSPE Code is designed to protect from deceptive qualification representations in employment-seeking contexts.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.72
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: low
obligatedparty: Employer Y
obligationclass: Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Employer Y, as a prospective engineering employer evaluating Engineer A's resume, bears a residual obligation to seek clarification of the scope and nature of Engineer A's individual contributions to listed patented products when the resume language is ambiguous as to team versus individual design responsibility.
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
temporalscope: During the evaluation of Engineer A's resume and qualification claims
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.748216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Employer Y Resume-Deceived Prospective Employer Qualification Verification Constraint
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Employer Y received a resume from Engineer A implying sole personal responsibility for jointly-designed patented products; the ethical norm of professional due diligence constrained Employer Y to verify the scope of claimed credits before relying on them.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.75
constrainedentity: Employer Y
constraintclass: Ethical Constraint
constraintstatement: Employer Y, as a prospective engineering employer evaluating Engineer A's resume, was constrained by the professional norm of seeking clarification of the scope and nature of claimed design credits — particularly where resume language implies sole authorship of products that may have been collaboratively designed — before making employment decisions that rely on those representations.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional employment due diligence norms
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
temporalscope: During the resume evaluation and hiring process
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.748705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Employer Y Resume-Deceived Prospective Employer Verification Inquiry Capability Instance
type: ProspectiveEmployerResumeVerificationInquiryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prospective Employer Resume Verification Inquiry Capability
capabilitystatement: Employer Y, as the prospective engineering employer evaluating Engineer A's resume, bore the capability — and residual obligation — to formulate clarifying inquiries about the scope and nature of Engineer A's claimed design contributions to verify whether the patented products were individually or jointly designed.
casecontext: Employer Y received Engineer A's resume implying sole authorship of jointly-patented products and was the party the Board identified as the intended beneficiary of the Code's misrepresentation protections
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Position as the party the Code is designed to protect from deception about engineer competence, with the practical ability to request clarification about team composition and individual role before making hiring decisions
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Employer Y
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
textreferences: Employer Y, as a prospective engineering employer evaluating Engineer A's resume, bears a residual obligation to seek clarification of the scope and nature of Engineer A's claimed design contributions
textreferences: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.752657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Artful Misrepresentation in Resume Recognition
type: ArtfulMisrepresentationinNegotiationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that his resume framing — implying sole personal responsibility for jointly-designed products without explicitly lying — constituted an artfully constructed false impression in violation of professional ethics obligations
casecontext: Engineer A's resume implied sole authorship through framing rather than explicit false statement, constituting artful misrepresentation to Employer Y
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A crafted resume language that was artfully misleading about his individual versus team contribution to the patented products
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.749337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Artfully Misleading Resume Implication Prohibition
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's resume language implies personal responsibility for jointly-designed products without making an outright false statement, exploiting the partial truth of his participation to mislead Employer Y about the nature and scope of his individual contribution.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making artfully misleading statements on his resume — specifically, from framing his participation in jointly-designed patented products in a manner that was technically accurate (he did participate) but intentionally structured to create the false impression of sole personal responsibility, thereby obscuring the material fact of joint team design.
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the resume to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.747440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A At-Will Employment Transition
type: At-WillProfessionalMobilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A begins seeking new employment through submission of resume to Employer Y
affectedparties: Employer X
affectedparties: Employer Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:24.173018+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:24.173018+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is seeking employment with Employer Y
stateclass: At-Will Professional Mobility State
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship — departing Employer X, seeking engagement with Employer Y
terminatedby: Acceptance or rejection of employment by Employer Y
textreferences: As an employee for Employer X, Engineer A was a staff engineer
textreferences: Engineer A is seeking employment with Employer Y
triggeringevent: Engineer A initiates job search with Employer Y while previously employed at Employer X
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A BER Dual-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation
type: BERDual-PrecedentResumeMisrepresentationSpectrumTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to triangulate between BER Case 72-11 (permissible selective emphasis) and BER Case 86-6 (impermissible implied sole authorship of team-designed products) to correctly locate his own resume conduct on the spectrum and recognize that implying sole authorship of jointly-patented team work falls squarely within the impermissible category
casecontext: The BER analysis of this case draws on both Case 72-11 and Case 86-6 to locate Engineer A's conduct on the misrepresentation spectrum
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A's resume conduct aligns with the impermissible end of the spectrum established by BER Case 86-6 rather than the permissible emphasis of Case 72-11
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Co-Designer Credit Omission Five Team Members Resume
type: Co-DesignerCreditOmissionProhibitioninEmploymentSeekingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's resume omits the five other equal-rank staff engineers who jointly participated in and were credited with the design of the patented products, thereby depriving them of professional credit and deceiving Employer Y.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Co-Designer Credit Omission Prohibition in Employment Seeking Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to acknowledge the contributions of the five co-equal team members when listing the jointly-designed and jointly-patented products on his resume, and to refrain from omitting their participation in a manner that created the false impression of sole or primary design responsibility.
sourcetext: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the resume to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
textreferences: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.747293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Co-Equal Team Member Credit Acknowledgment in Resume Deficit
type: Co-EqualTeamMemberCreditAcknowledgmentinResumeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Co-Equal Team Member Credit Acknowledgment in Resume Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to frame his resume descriptions of jointly-patented products to indicate that the work was a team effort, instead omitting any reference to the collaborative nature of the design, thereby violating Section III.10.a.'s due-credit requirement.
casecontext: Engineer A's resume listed products jointly designed by six engineers without acknowledging the team nature of the work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Listing jointly-patented products on resume without any indication that the design was performed by a six-member team, failing to express that the work was a team effort rather than an individual effort
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
textreferences: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
textreferences: we do believe that Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort
textreferences: we do not mean to suggest that Engineer A indicate the names of the five other engineers on his employment resume
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.753135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
type: CollaborativeCreditMisrepresentingJob-SeekingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'current_employer': 'Employer X', 'prospective_employer': 'Employer Y', 'team_rank': 'Staff engineer, equal rank with five peers', 'misrepresentation_type': 'Implied sole authorship of jointly patented designs'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A submits a resume to Employer Y implying sole personal responsibility for patented products that were jointly designed by a six-member team at Employer X, constituting a misrepresentation of individual contribution.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'applicant_to', 'target': 'Employer Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employee_of', 'target': 'Employer X'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Five-Member Joint Design Team'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.739629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Employment Pressure Non-Justification Resume Misrepresentation
type: NegotiationCompetitivePressureNon-JustificationforMisrepresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The case discussion explicitly acknowledges the great pressure on job applicants to stress qualities that make the best impression, but the BER nonetheless found Engineer A's intentional misleading implication unethical despite this competitive context
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Negotiation Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from using the highly competitive employment environment and the pressure to make the best impression on prospective employers as justification for intentionally obscuring the team nature of the jointly-patented products on his resume, establishing that competitive employment pressure does not relax the duty of non-deception in professional self-presentations.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression upon those in a position of responsibility in the hiring process.
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: Instead, we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
textreferences: Job seekers take great pains to stress those aspects of their educational and employment history which demonstrate their suitability for the particular employment position in question.
textreferences: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression upon those in a position of responsibility in the hiring process.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Employment-Seeking Resume Omission Materiality Self-Assessment
type: Employment-SeekingResumeOmissionMaterialitySelf-AssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A fails to assess or disregards the materiality of omitting five co-equal co-designers from his resume description of jointly-patented products, submitting a resume that creates a materially false impression of sole design responsibility.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employment-Seeking Resume Omission Materiality Self-Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to assess whether his omission of the five co-equal team members from his resume description of the jointly-patented products constituted a material misrepresentation — recognizing that a reasonable prospective employer would consider the existence of five co-equal co-designers highly significant in evaluating his individual qualifications — and to correct the omission before submitting the resume to Employer Y.
sourcetext: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products.
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of submitting the resume to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
textreferences: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.748054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Competitive Pressure Non-Justification Self-Application Deficit
type: EmploymentCompetitivePressureNon-JustificationforResumeDeceptionSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Resume Deception Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to apply the principle that competitive employment pressure does not justify resume misrepresentation, instead allowing the competitive employment environment to motivate intentional obscuring of the team nature of his design contributions.
casecontext: Engineer A operated in a highly competitive employment environment where resume screening creates pressure to maximize apparent qualifications
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Submission of resume implying sole authorship in a competitive employment environment without disclosing team composition, despite the ethical obligation to maintain accuracy regardless of competitive pressure
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression
textreferences: In the highly competitive employment environment that currently exists, the employment resume is the means through which the prospective employer 'screens out' the less desirous, less qualified applicants
textreferences: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.752514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Equal-Rank Peer Contribution Non-Erasure
type: Equal-RankPeerContributionNon-ErasureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Equal-Rank Peer Contribution Non-Erasure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that omitting the five co-equal staff engineers from his resume description of the jointly-patented products constituted an impermissible erasure of their professional credit, and to ensure their contributions were acknowledged in his qualification representations
casecontext: Engineer A was one of six equal-rank staff engineers who jointly designed and were jointly credited with the patented products; his resume omitted all five peers
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A's resume erased the five co-equal team members entirely, implying sole personal design responsibility
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
textreferences: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.736837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Failure to Credit Design Team Members
type: ImpliedSoleCreditMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of resume through Board determination
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Five unnamed staff engineers
affectedparties: Prospective employers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:26.461789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:26.461789+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
stateclass: Implied Sole Credit Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A's omission of any acknowledgment that design work was a team effort, failing to provide due credit to five co-engineers
terminatedby: Board's determination and guidance that Engineer A must express that design work was performed as a team effort
textreferences: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort
triggeringevent: Engineer A presenting team-designed products without indicating collaborative authorship, in violation of Section III.10.a
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.736626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
type: ImpliedSoleCreditMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of resume to Employer Y onward, until corrected or withdrawn
affectedparties: Employer Y
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Five co-equal team members at Employer X
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:24.173018+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:24.173018+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
stateclass: Implied Sole Credit Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A's resume representation of jointly designed patented products as personal individual accomplishments
terminatedby: Correction of resume to accurately reflect collaborative authorship, or withdrawal of application
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
triggeringevent: Engineer A submits resume to Employer Y implying personal sole responsibility for products designed by a six-person team
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.736302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Resume
type: BERPrecedentIntent-DifferentiatedMisrepresentationSeverityCalibrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER's analysis of Engineer A's resume conduct turned on whether the misleading implication was intentional or inadvertent, with the Board noting that intentional misleading statements constitute a clear ethical violation while inadvertent omissions may be assessed differently.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A (and reviewing body)
constraintclass: BER Precedent Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Constraint
constraintstatement: The severity of the ethical violation finding against Engineer A was constrained by the intent-differentiation principle — if the misleading implication on his resume was intentional (designed to deceive Employer Y about his individual design responsibility), the violation is clear and serious; if inadvertent (an oversight without malice), the ethical assessment must be calibrated accordingly, though inadvertence does not fully exculpate where the misrepresentation is material.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case No. 83-1; BER Case No. 90-4; BER Case No. 86-6; NSPE Code Section II.5.a
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
temporalscope: At the time of ethical review of Engineer A's resume conduct
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.748398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Intentional Deception vs Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction Application
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly limited its holding to intentionally misleading statements, distinguishing Engineer A's deliberate obscuring of team credit from unintentionally false or inaccurate statements, which the Board stated would not be unethical per se.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making intentionally misleading statements on his resume — statements designed to obscure the truth about team authorship — recognizing that the ethics prohibition applies to intentional deception and not merely to inadvertent inaccuracies, and that Engineer A's deliberate omission of team context crossed the line from inadvertent error into intentional misrepresentation.
sourcetext: We stress however, that we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se.
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: Instead, we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
textreferences: We stress however, that we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.751849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Intentional Implication-Based Misrepresentation Resume Employer Y
type: Team-DesignedWorkImpliedSoleAuthorshipResumeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A listed jointly-patented products on his resume without acknowledging the five co-equal team members, creating an implied impression of sole or primary authorship; BER found this violated Section II.5.a as an intentional implication designed to mislead
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Team-Designed Work Implied Sole Authorship Resume Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by NSPE Code Section II.5.a from implying on his resume submitted to Employer Y that he was personally and solely responsible for the design of products that were in fact designed through the joint efforts of a six-member team of equal-rank engineers, with the constraint applying to intentional implications designed to obscure the collaborative nature of the work even in the absence of explicit false statements.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
textreferences: Instead, we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
textreferences: While we acknowledge that Engineer A did not in fact state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, we interpret the term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Intentional vs Unintentional Misrepresentation Calibration Resume
type: BERPrecedentIntent-DifferentiatedMisrepresentationSeverityCalibrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER explicitly distinguished between unintentional inaccuracies (not per se unethical) and intentional misleading implications (clearly unethical), finding Engineer A's conduct fell in the latter category
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: BER / Engineer A
constraintclass: BER Precedent Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER was constrained to calibrate its ethical violation finding to the intentional nature of Engineer A's resume misrepresentation — distinguishing between unintentionally false or inaccurate statements (which would not be unethical per se) and statements intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth (which constitute a clear ethical violation) — and Engineer A was correspondingly constrained to ensure that any resume implications were not intentionally structured to mislead.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: We stress however, that we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se.
temporalscope: At the time of BER ethical analysis and at the time of Engineer A's resume preparation
textreferences: Instead, we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth.
textreferences: We stress however, that we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Intentional vs Unintentional Misrepresentation Distinction
type: Intent-DifferentiatedMarketingMisrepresentationAssessmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the Board's deliberation on Engineer A's resume conduct
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineering profession
affectedparties: Prospective employers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:26.461789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:26.461789+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se
stateclass: Intent-Differentiated Marketing Misrepresentation Assessment State
subject: Board's ethical evaluation of Engineer A's resume conduct turning on whether the misleading implication was intentional or inadvertent
terminatedby: Board's conclusion that Engineer A's statements were intentionally designed to mislead
textreferences: we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth
textreferences: we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se
triggeringevent: Board's need to distinguish between unintentionally false or inaccurate statements (not per se unethical) and intentionally misleading statements (unethical)
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.736467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Joint Patent Co-Designer Credit Omission Resume Prohibition
type: JointPatentCo-DesignerCreditOmissionResumeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Five co-equal staff engineers at Employer X participated equally in the design of the patented products; Engineer A's resume omitted any acknowledgment of their contributions, creating a false impression of sole authorship.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Joint Patent Co-Designer Credit Omission Resume Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from listing the jointly-patented products on his resume without affirmatively disclosing that the patents resulted from a six-member equal-rank team effort and identifying his specific individual contribution — the omission of the five co-equal team members from the resume description violated the duty to give credit to those to whom credit is due under NSPE Code Section III.10.a.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.10.a; NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.743044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Joint Patent Team Composition Affirmative Disclosure
type: JointPatentTeamCompositionAffirmativeDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Joint Patent Team Composition Affirmative Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to affirmatively disclose that the patented products listed on his resume were designed by a six-member team of equal-ranked engineers, so that Employer Y could accurately assess his individual contribution rather than being misled into believing he was the sole designer
casecontext: Engineer A listed jointly-patented products on his resume to Employer Y without disclosing the six-member equal-rank team that designed them
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A omitted all reference to the five co-equal team members when listing the jointly-patented products
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.749491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Joint Patent Team Composition Disclosure Resume Employer Y
type: JointPatentTeamCompositionDisclosureinResumeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A lists jointly-patented products on his resume without disclosing that five other equal-rank engineers participated equally in their design, depriving Employer Y of the information needed to accurately assess his individual inventive contribution.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Joint Patent Team Composition Disclosure in Resume Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose the team composition — specifically that the patented products were designed by a six-member team of equal-rank staff engineers — when listing those products on his resume submitted to Employer Y, so that Employer Y could accurately assess his individual contribution to the patented work.
sourcetext: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the resume to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.747904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Resume Qualification
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The team composition (six equal-rank engineers) and Engineer A's specific individual role within that team were pertinent facts material to Employer Y's hiring decision; their omission combined with the implied sole-authorship framing satisfied both elements of the misrepresentation prohibition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's resume conduct was constrained by the dual-element misrepresentation test: (1) the team composition and his equal-rank status among six co-designers constituted 'pertinent facts' of clear and decisive relevance to Employer Y's assessment of his qualifications, and (2) the implied sole-authorship framing was structured with the intent and purpose of enhancing his apparent qualifications — both elements being present, the conduct constituted a prohibited misrepresentation of professional qualifications.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 83-1; NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.748550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Prior-Employer Patent Credit Scope Limitation Resume
type: Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeLimitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A lists jointly-patented products from his employment at Employer X on his resume without disclosing the team context or his specific role, implying sole or primary design credit for work that was equally shared among six engineers.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to limit his claims of credit for the patented products designed at Employer X to his specific personal contributions as one of six equal-rank team members, and to disclose the team context and his specific role rather than claiming undifferentiated credit for the full jointly-designed product line.
sourcetext: As an employee for Employer X, Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the resume to Employer Y
textreferences: As an employee for Employer X, Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank.
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.747747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration
type: Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to calibrate the scope of credit he claimed for the patented products designed at Employer X to his specific personal contributions as one of six equal-rank team members, rather than implying individual ownership of the entire team design effort
casecontext: Engineer A transitioning from Employer X to Employer Y listed jointly-patented products without disclosing the six-member team context
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A claimed credit implying sole personal responsibility rather than limiting claims to his individual role within the team
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.749195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Progressive Ethics Code Broadening Retroactive Non-Application Acknowledgment
type: ProgressiveEthicsCodeBroadeningRetroactiveNon-ApplicationAcknowledgmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board distinguished Engineer A's conduct from the permissible emphasis in Case 72-11 by noting that the Code has been progressively amended to restrict further the representations engineers may make, with new Section II.5.a. specifically addressing professional qualification misrepresentation.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (and ethics adjudicators evaluating Engineer A's conduct)
obligationclass: Progressive Ethics Code Broadening Retroactive Non-Application Acknowledgment Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to apply the current, more restrictive NSPE Code Section II.5.a. to Engineer A's conduct rather than the narrower code language under which Case 72-11 was decided, recognizing that the progressive broadening of the code's prohibition on misrepresentation means that conduct permissible under older code language may be prohibited under the current formulation.
sourcetext: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc.
temporalscope: At the time of ethics adjudication of Engineer A's resume conduct
textreferences: In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
textreferences: New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.
textreferences: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.751707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Resume Submission to Employer Y
type: QualificationsNon-FalsificationandNon-MisrepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submits a resume to Employer Y that misrepresents his qualifications by implying sole design responsibility for jointly-patented products, violating the fundamental duty not to falsify or misrepresent one's own qualifications in professional documents.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting his qualifications on his resume submitted to Employer Y, including refraining from implying sole personal responsibility for patented products that were jointly designed by a six-member team.
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the resume to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.747596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Resume Competitive Employment Context Ethical Stakes Recognition Deficit
type: ResumeCompetitiveEmploymentContextEthicalStakesRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Resume Competitive Employment Context Ethical Stakes Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to adequately recognize the heightened ethical stakes of resume misrepresentation in the competitive employment context — specifically that the resume's screening function and its role as first impression make accuracy particularly critical for employer protection.
casecontext: Engineer A prepared resume in a highly competitive employment environment where the stakes of resume content are particularly high
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Allowing competitive employment pressure to motivate misleading resume framing rather than recognizing that the importance of the resume to employer decision-making heightens rather than diminishes the ethical obligation of accuracy
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The importance of the employment resume cannot be overstated
textreferences: The importance of the employment resume cannot be overstated
textreferences: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant
textreferences: the contents of a resume can have an enormous impact upon the success of an employment applicant being considered for a position
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.753674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
type: ResumeCompetitivePressureNon-JustificationforMisrepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board acknowledged the intense competitive pressure on job applicants but held that such pressure does not justify Engineer A's intentional obscuring of team credit for jointly-designed products.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using the competitive employment environment as justification for intentionally obscuring the team nature of the patented product design on his resume, recognizing that competitive pressure does not constitute an ethical defense for misrepresentation under NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
sourcetext: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression upon those in a position of responsibility in the hiring process.
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission
textreferences: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression upon those in a position of responsibility in the hiring process.
textreferences: we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.751263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Resume Emphasis Permissible Boundary Non-Deception Application
type: ResumeEmphasisPermissibleBoundaryNon-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER distinguished permissible emphasis (BER 72-11, Engineer Doe restructuring resume to highlight managerial experience) from impermissible misrepresentation (BER 86-6, Engineer A implying sole credit for team-designed patents); Engineer A's conduct fell on the impermissible side of this boundary.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Resume Emphasis Permissible Boundary Non-Deception Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the boundary between permissible resume emphasis and impermissible misrepresentation — while selective emphasis of experience is ethically permissible, the implied sole-authorship framing of jointly-patented team work crossed from permissible emphasis into deceptive misrepresentation, particularly where the intent was to mislead Employer Y about the scope of his individual design responsibility.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 72-11; BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.743212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Resume Implication-Based Intentional Deception Self-Recognition Deficit
type: ResumeImplication-BasedIntentionalDeceptionSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Resume Implication-Based Intentional Deception Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his resume framing — listing jointly-patented products without disclosing the six-member team — constituted an intentionally misleading implication rather than a permissible omission, resulting in a violation of Section II.5.a.
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a resume to Employer Y listing products jointly designed by a six-member team without indicating the team nature of the work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to disclose team composition when listing jointly-patented products on resume submitted to Employer Y, creating the misleading impression of sole or primary personal responsibility
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team
textreferences: Engineer A did not in fact state that he was personally responsible for the work in question
textreferences: statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth
textreferences: we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.752370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation Prohibition
type: ResumeTeamContributionSoleAuthorshipMisrepresentationProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted a resume to Employer Y listing jointly-patented products without indicating that the design was performed by a six-member team, creating the false impression of sole personal design responsibility.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Resume Team Contribution Sole Authorship Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from implying on his resume that he was personally and solely responsible for the design of products that were in fact jointly designed by a six-member team, recognizing that intentional implication of sole authorship — even without an explicit false statement — constitutes misrepresentation under NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
sourcetext: we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
temporalscope: At the time of resume submission to Employer Y
textreferences: While we acknowledge that Engineer A did not in fact state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, we interpret the term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter.
textreferences: we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.750944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Resume Omission Materiality Self-Assessment
type: ResumeOmissionMaterialitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Resume Omission Materiality Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to assess whether his omission of the five co-equal team members from his resume description of the jointly-patented products was material to Employer Y's evaluation of his qualifications, and to recognize that such omission was highly material because it transformed a team achievement into an apparent individual accomplishment
casecontext: Engineer A's omission of co-designers was material because it caused Employer Y to evaluate him as the sole designer of patented products rather than as one of six equal contributors
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A did not assess or disregarded the materiality of omitting five co-equal co-designers from his resume
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.736983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Resume Selective Emphasis vs Misrepresentation Boundary Discrimination
type: ResumeSelectiveEmphasisvs.MisrepresentationBoundaryDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Resume Selective Emphasis vs. Misrepresentation Boundary Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to correctly distinguish between permissible selective emphasis of his genuine individual contributions to the team's patented products and impermissible misrepresentation that implied sole authorship of jointly-designed work
casecontext: Engineer A's resume to Employer Y implied sole design credit rather than accurately representing his role as one of six equal-rank team members
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A crossed the boundary from permissible emphasis into impermissible misrepresentation by implying sole personal responsibility
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.749021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Team-Designed Patent Sole-Authorship Implication Prohibition Resume Submission
type: ResumeTeamContributionSoleAuthorshipMisrepresentationProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submits a resume to Employer Y implying personal sole responsibility for patented products that were jointly designed by himself and five other equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:43:03.046583+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Resume Team Contribution Sole Authorship Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from implying on his resume submitted to Employer Y that he personally and solely was responsible for the design of patented products that were in fact jointly designed by a six-member team of equal-rank staff engineers at Employer X.
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the resume to Employer Y
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.747138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Team-Designed Patent Sole-Authorship Implication Resume Prohibition
type: Team-DesignedWorkImpliedSoleAuthorshipResumeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, one of six equal-rank staff engineers who jointly designed and jointly patented a series of products at Employer X, submitted a resume to Employer Y implying personal sole responsibility for those jointly-designed patented products.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Team-Designed Work Implied Sole Authorship Resume Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from structuring his resume to imply that he personally and solely was responsible for the design of the patented products that were in fact jointly designed by a six-member equal-rank team at Employer X — the implied sole-authorship framing, even without an explicit false claim, constituted an ethical violation of the non-deception and non-misrepresentation provisions of the NSPE Code.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:29.582701+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
temporalscope: At the time of resume submission to Employer Y and throughout any employment-seeking process
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.740387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Team Contribution Sole Authorship Implication Non-Commission
type: TeamContributionSoleAuthorshipImplicationNon-CommissionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Team Contribution Sole Authorship Implication Non-Commission Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that implying sole personal responsibility for the jointly-designed patented products — even without explicitly claiming sole authorship — constitutes an impermissible misrepresentation of his qualifications to Employer Y
casecontext: Engineer A seeking employment with Employer Y submitted a resume implying sole design credit for products jointly designed by a six-member equal-rank team at Employer X
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A submitted a resume implying personal sole responsibility for products designed by a six-member team
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.748871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Team Effort Acknowledgment Resume Section III.10.a
type: JointPatentCo-DesignerCreditOmissionResumeProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER found Engineer A violated Section III.10.a by failing to give due credit to the five other staff engineers who worked with him in designing the patented products; BER clarified that compliance required noting the team effort, not necessarily naming all five engineers
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Joint Patent Co-Designer Credit Omission Resume Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by NSPE Code Section III.10.a to express on his resume that the design work attributed to him was performed as a result of a team effort rather than an individual effort, with the constraint satisfied by noting the team nature of the work without necessarily naming the five other engineers individually.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section III.10.a (now repealed); BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: Finally, we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: By noting such, we believe that in the context of the fact in this case, Engineer A would be in compliance with the spirit and intent of Section III.10.a.
textreferences: Finally, we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
textreferences: While we certainly are not suggesting that Engineer A indicate the names of the five other engineers on his employment resume, we do believe that Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A Team Effort Acknowledgment in Resume Design Credit
type: TeamEffortAcknowledgmentinResumeDesignCreditObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A listed jointly-patented products on his resume without any indication that the design was a team effort involving five co-equal staff engineers, violating his duty to give due credit under NSPE Code Section III.10.a.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Team Effort Acknowledgment in Resume Design Credit Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to express on his resume that the design work attributed to him was performed as a result of a team effort rather than an individual effort — without necessarily naming the five co-designers — so that Employer Y could accurately assess his individual contribution to the jointly-patented products.
sourcetext: we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
temporalscope: At the time of resume preparation and submission to Employer Y
textreferences: While we certainly are not suggesting that Engineer A indicate the names of the five other engineers on his employment resume, we do believe that Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort.
textreferences: we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.751094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A's employment at Employer X (team design work) before Engineer A seeking employment with Employer Y
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer A's team design work at Employer X before Engineer A's resume submission to Employer Y
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer in Case 79-5 receiving BS degree (1940) before Engineer receiving PE registration
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer receiving PE registration before Engineer receiving Professional Degree
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Engineer receiving Professional Degree before Engineer receiving Ph.D. from diploma mill (1960)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Ethical Violation Finding Issued
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Five-Member Joint Design Team
type: JointDesignTeamMemberEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'team_size': 'Five engineers (excluding Engineer A)', 'rank': 'Equal rank staff engineers', 'credit_type': 'Shared patent credit for jointly designed products'}
caseinvolvement: The five other staff engineers of equal rank who jointly participated in and were credited with the design of the patented products, whose collective contributions are misrepresented by Engineer A's resume implying sole personal responsibility.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:39.928820+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employee_of', 'target': 'Employer X Former Engineering Employer'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Joint Design Team Member Engineer
sourcetext: five other staff engineers of equal rank
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: five other staff engineers of equal rank
textreferences: products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.739327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Five Staff Engineers Joint Design Team Members
type: JointDesignTeamMemberEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'team_size': 'Six members including Engineer A', 'credit_status': "Omitted from Engineer A's resume representation", 'code_section': 'NSPE III.10.a'}
caseinvolvement: Five staff engineers who jointly designed products with Engineer A and whose collaborative contributions were omitted and obscured by Engineer A's resume, entitling them to due credit under NSPE Code Section III.10.a.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Joint Design Team Member Engineer
sourcetext: those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort
textreferences: the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort
textreferences: those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.739771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Honesty Principle Invoked Against Engineer A Collaborative Misrepresentation
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
balancingwith: Competitive employment interests
balancingwith: Self-advocacy
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The foundational professional virtue of honesty requires Engineer A to truthfully represent the collaborative nature of the patented product designs rather than implying sole personal responsibility; honesty as a core professional virtue is violated by the resume's misleading framing
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty as a canonical professional virtue principle applies at the most foundational level to Engineer A's conduct; regardless of the specific rule invoked, the basic obligation of truthfulness in professional self-representation is violated when an engineer implies sole credit for collaborative work
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
tensionresolution: Honesty is a non-negotiable professional virtue; competitive employment pressures do not justify misrepresentation of collaborative achievements
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.746953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer A Resume Submission
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
appliedto: Patented products designed by six-member team at Employer X
balancingwith: Legitimate self-promotion in competitive employment market
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's resume implies personal sole responsibility for patented products that were jointly designed by a six-member team, constituting a false assurance of individual design capability that misleads Employer Y about the actual scope of Engineer A's independent contributions
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations requires that engineers accurately portray not only what they did, but the collaborative context in which they did it; implying sole authorship of joint work is a form of dishonest self-representation even if no individual statement is literally false
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
tensionresolution: The principle of honesty overrides competitive self-promotion interests; engineers may highlight their contributions but must not imply sole authorship of collaborative work
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.743364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations — Employer Protection Purpose
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineering employment resume qualification representations
balancingwith: Competitive employment pressure on job applicants
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The purpose of the ethics code provision against qualification misrepresentation is to protect prospective employers from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant, so that the employer is not tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The employer-protection rationale grounds the honesty obligation in the practical harm of misrepresentation — placing unqualified engineers in positions of engineering responsibility — not merely in abstract truthfulness norms
invokedby: Resume-Deceived Prospective Engineering Employer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
tensionresolution: The employer's interest in accurate qualification information and the public's interest in competent engineering practice override the applicant's interest in favorable self-presentation
textreferences: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.749813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Implication-as-Misrepresentation — Engineer A Sole Credit Implication for Joint Design
type: Implication-as-MisrepresentationinProfessionalQualificationDocuments
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Resume presentation of patented products designed by a six-member team
balancingwith: Collaborative Credit Omission Misrepresentation Prohibition in Employment Seeking
balancingwith: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's resume implied sole personal responsibility for jointly-designed patented products without explicitly stating it; the Board held this implication violated Section II.5.a. because it was intentionally designed to obscure the collaborative nature of the design work
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. encompasses implications intended to obscure truth, not only explicit false statements; Engineer A's failure to note team authorship while presenting the products as his work created an impermissible implied misrepresentation
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Implication-as-Misrepresentation in Professional Qualification Documents
sourcetext: we interpret the term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter
tensionresolution: Unlike Case 72-11 where emphasis reflected genuine competence, Engineer A's implication obscured a material fact — the collaborative nature of the design — that the prospective employer needed to accurately assess Engineer A's individual capabilities
textreferences: Engineer A did not in fact state that he was personally responsible for the work in question
textreferences: we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team
textreferences: we interpret the term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.750312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Implying Sole Resume Authorship
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Intellectual Integrity in Authorship Violated by Omission of Co-Designers
type: IntellectualIntegrityinAuthorship
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
appliedto: Patented products jointly designed by six-member team
balancingwith: Competitive employment-seeking interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A misrepresents the intellectual origins of the patented products by omitting the material contributions of five co-equal team members, implying that the intellectual and design work was solely his own when it was collectively produced
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Intellectual integrity in authorship requires that engineers accurately represent not only that they contributed to a work product, but that others contributed equally; the omission of co-inventors and co-designers from a resume description of jointly-patented products violates the principle's requirement to avoid misrepresentation that the work is solely or independently one's own
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Intellectual Integrity in Authorship
sourcetext: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
tensionresolution: Intellectual integrity is not negotiable in the employment-seeking context; the fact that co-contributors are not present to assert their credit makes accurate attribution more, not less, important
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.743736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Intentional Deception vs. Inadvertent Inaccuracy — Engineer A Deliberate Obscuring of Team Credit
type: IntentionalDeceptionVersusInadvertentInaccuracyDistinctioninProfessionalMisrepresentation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Resume misrepresentation of individual versus collaborative design responsibility
balancingwith: Implication-as-Misrepresentation in Professional Qualification Documents
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board explicitly limits its holding to intentionally misleading statements — like Engineer A's deliberate omission of team credit — and expressly exempts unintentionally false or inaccurate statements from per se ethical violation, grounding culpability in the engineer's deliberate intent to mislead
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Ethical culpability for qualification misrepresentation requires deliberate intent to mislead; the Board's holding is carefully scoped to intentional deception, preserving space for inadvertent errors that are corrected upon discovery
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Intentional Deception Versus Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction in Professional Misrepresentation
sourcetext: we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se. Instead, we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth
tensionresolution: The intent element limits the scope of the prohibition, ensuring that engineers are not held ethically culpable for honest mistakes while maintaining accountability for deliberate deception
textreferences: Instead, we are referring to statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth
textreferences: we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.750465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

John Doe Case 72-11 Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
type: ResumeMisrepresentingJob-SeekingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'specialty': 'Aerospace design engineering', 'misrepresentation_type': 'Emphasis of minor managerial experience over primary technical expertise', 'outcome': 'Found not in violation under Case 72-11 analysis', 'code_provision': 'Former NSPE Section 3(e) / 3(c)'}
caseinvolvement: Aerospace design engineer laid off after 12 years who, after repeated rejections, rewrote his resume to emphasize minor managerial/administrative experience over his primary technical design expertise in order to obtain employment — found by the Board to be a matter of permissible emphasis rather than unethical misrepresentation under the then-applicable Code.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'precedent_for', 'target': 'Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
sourcetext: Doe devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function
textreferences: Doe devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function
textreferences: we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.740074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

John Doe Case 72-11 Resume Selective Emphasis Boundary Discrimination
type: ResumeSelectiveEmphasisvs.MisrepresentationBoundaryDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Resume Selective Emphasis vs. Misrepresentation Boundary Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: John Doe in Case 72-11 was required to correctly distinguish between permissible selective emphasis of minor managerial experience to obtain a managerial role and impermissible misrepresentation of his qualifications, with the BER finding his conduct fell within the permissible emphasis category
casecontext: Aerospace design engineer laid off after 12 years who rewrote resume to emphasize minor managerial experience; BER found this permissible as a degree of emphasis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER Case 72-11 found that emphasizing minor managerial/administrative experience to obtain a managerial position constituted permissible selective emphasis rather than impermissible misrepresentation
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:44:44.080787+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: John Doe (Case 72-11)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

John Doe Case 72-11 Resume Selective Emphasis vs Misrepresentation Boundary Compliance
type: ResumeSelectiveEmphasisvs.MisrepresentationBoundaryDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Resume Selective Emphasis vs. Misrepresentation Boundary Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: John Doe demonstrated the capability to remain within the permissible zone of selective emphasis — emphasizing minor managerial experience to obtain a managerial role — without crossing into impermissible misrepresentation, as the Board found his conduct condoned as a degree of emphasis rather than exaggeration.
casecontext: Aerospace engineer laid off after 12 years who rewrote resume to emphasize managerial experience after repeated rejections for technical positions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Rewriting resume to emphasize minor managerial and administrative experience while downplaying technical design expertise, remaining within the permissible selective emphasis zone recognized by the Board under old Code 3(e)
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:15.303612+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: John Doe (Case 72-11)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In concluding that Doe was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner, we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis
textreferences: In Case 72-11, we found that Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical areas of the employment even though Doe strongly emphasized its extent and level
textreferences: In concluding that Doe was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner, we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.753833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
type: SelectiveEmphasisCompetence-DeceptionBoundaryComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: John Doe, laid off after 12 years as a design engineer, rewrote his resume to emphasize minor managerial experience for management positions. The Board found this permissible because Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the emphasized area.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:48:54.714289+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: John Doe (Case 72-11)
obligationclass: Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: John Doe was obligated to ensure that his resume's selective emphasis of managerial and administrative experience remained within the permissible zone — i.e., that the emphasis did not deceive the prospective employer about his actual competence for the management role sought — and the Board found he met this obligation because he genuinely possessed some degree of competence in the emphasized area.
sourcetext: In concluding that Doe was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner, we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis.
temporalscope: At the time of resume rewriting and submission (Case 72-11)
textreferences: In Case 72-11, we found that Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical areas of the employment even though Doe strongly emphasized its extent and level.
textreferences: In concluding that Doe was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner, we were inclined to the more charitable view that Doe's action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.751409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Joint Team Design Credit Held by Six Engineers
type: PartialAttributionDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Persists from the time the patented products were jointly designed; ongoing background fact at time of resume submission
affectedparties: Employer X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Five co-equal staff engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:24.173018+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:24.173018+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products
stateclass: Partial Attribution Disclosure
subject: The factual state of shared, equal design credit among six staff engineers for a series of patented products at Employer X
terminatedby: Not terminated — inertial factual state
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products
triggeringevent: Completion and patent registration of products designed by the six-member team
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Misleading Resume Received
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Misrepresentation_in_Business_Dealings_Standard
type: MisrepresentationinBusinessDealingsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:08.967136+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:08.967136+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
usedby: Engineer A during employment solicitation with Employer Y
usedincontext: Applies to Engineer A's act of implying sole personal responsibility for jointly designed patented products in a resume submitted during employment negotiations with Employer Y — a professional business dealing in which false or misleading statements are prohibited
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Old_Section_3c
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Former Section 3(c) / 3(e)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant
textreferences: Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
textreferences: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in tracing doctrinal evolution from Case 72-11 through Case 79-5
usedincontext: Referenced historically to trace the evolution of the Code's prohibition on qualification misrepresentation, from 'exaggerated statements' to 'misleading, deceptive or false statements'
version: Pre-1979 version (superseded)
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.735712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE Code Progressive Amendment Stricter Resume Standard Case 86-6
type: ProgressiveEthicsCodeTighteningStricterResumeStandardImpositionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER traced the evolution of the qualification misrepresentation prohibition from 'exaggerated statements' (old 3(c)) to 'misleading, deceptive or false statements' (3(e)) to the current affirmative prohibition in Section II.5.a, applying the strictest current standard to Engineer A's conduct
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: BER / Engineer A
constraintclass: Progressive Ethics Code Tightening Stricter Resume Standard Imposition Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER was constrained to apply the current, most restrictive version of the NSPE Code (Section II.5.a) to Engineer A's resume conduct rather than the more permissive standards of prior code iterations (old Section 3(c) or 3(e)), because each successive amendment progressively restricted the representations engineers may make in resumes and professional self-presentations; Engineer A was correspondingly constrained to meet the stricter current standard rather than the more permissive standard under which Case 72-11 was decided.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Cases 72-11, 79-5, 86-6
sourcetext: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc.
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer A's resume submission to Employer Y, under the then-current NSPE Code Section II.5.a
textreferences: In the context of the present case, we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
textreferences: New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.
textreferences: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.5.a Enacted → Ethical Violation Finding Issued
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_III_10_a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.10.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
textreferences: Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
textreferences: Note: Code III.10.a no longer exists.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's credit attribution obligations
usedincontext: Cited as the basis for Engineer A's obligation to give due credit to the five other staff engineers who contributed to the design work, requiring acknowledgment of team effort on resume
version: Version applicable at time of case (subsequently removed)
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.735561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_II_5_a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section II.5.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:19.628120+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.
textreferences: New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.
textreferences: we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's resume conduct
usedincontext: Cited as the primary normative authority prohibiting misrepresentation of professional qualifications in resumes, brochures, and correspondence; interpreted to cover implied misrepresentations not just explicit false statements
version: Current revision at time of case (post-Case 79-5 amendment)
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.735405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:08.967136+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:08.967136+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort
usedby: Engineer A (as obligation bearer); ethics reviewers assessing the resume misrepresentation
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to represent his qualifications honestly when seeking employment with Employer Y; prohibits false or misleading statements about professional contributions
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

NSPE Code revision introducing Section II.5.a before Engineer A submitting resume to Employer Y
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Omission Materiality Threshold Applied to Team Composition Omission
type: OmissionMaterialityThresholdinProfessionalDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Employer Y's hiring decision based on Engineer A's resume
balancingwith: Engineer's right to present qualifications favorably
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's omission of the five co-equal team members from his resume description of the patented products is a material omission because the team composition and Engineer A's individual role within it are directly relevant to Employer Y's assessment of Engineer A's independent design capabilities and hiring decision
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The omission of co-equal team members' contributions crosses the materiality threshold because a prospective employer's assessment of an engineer's individual design capability — the very basis for the hiring decision — would be materially affected by knowing that the listed achievements were collaborative rather than individual; this is not a non-material omission
invokedby: Prospective Employer Resume-Deceived Engineering Hiring Firm
principleclass: Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
sourcetext: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products
tensionresolution: When omitted information is material to the hiring decision, the materiality threshold is crossed and disclosure is ethically required regardless of the engineer's competitive interests
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.744202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Omitting Team Credit Attribution
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Omitting Team Credit Attribution → Implying Sole Resume Authorship
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Progressive Code Restriction — Section II.5.a. Further Restricts Resume Representations
type: ProgressiveEthicsCodeRestrictionRetroactiveInapplicabilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Evolution of NSPE Code provisions from Section 3(e) through Section 3(c) to Section II.5.a.
balancingwith: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board notes that since Case 79-5, the NSPE Code has again been modified with Section II.5.a. further restricting permissible representations, and applies this current, more restrictive language to Engineer A's case rather than the narrower standards under which prior cases were decided
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Each successive code amendment broadened the prohibition on qualification misrepresentation; the Board applies the current, most restrictive standard to Engineer A's conduct, distinguishing prior permissive outcomes as products of narrower code language
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Progressive Ethics Code Restriction Retroactive Inapplicability Principle
sourcetext: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified. The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc.
tensionresolution: Prior permissive outcomes (Case 72-11) are distinguished as decided under narrower code language; current code language requires stricter compliance
textreferences: New Section II.5.a. specifically addresses the issue of professional qualification misrepresentation.
textreferences: Since our decision in Case 79-5, the NSPE Code of Ethics has again been modified.
textreferences: The Code language appears to restrict even further the representations which engineers may make in resumes, brochures, correspondence, etc.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.750122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Prospective Employer Resume-Deceived Engineering Hiring Firm
type: Resume-DeceivedProspectiveEngineeringEmployer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'protected_interest': 'Accurate qualification assessment for engineering role assignment', 'code_protection': 'NSPE Section II.5.a and former Section 3(c)'}
caseinvolvement: The prospective engineering employer evaluating Engineer A's resume, identified by the Board as the party the Code is designed to protect from deceptive qualification representations, so that engineering responsibilities are not entrusted to unqualified individuals.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:39:41.736106+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'evaluating_applicant', 'target': 'Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Resume-Deceived Prospective Engineering Employer
sourcetext: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
textreferences: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them
textreferences: statements such as those made by Engineer A which are intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.739933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Applied to Team-Designed Patents
type: QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
appliedto: Patented products designed at Employer X
balancingwith: Competitive employment interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's resume fails to provide clear attribution of the team context and his specific role within the six-member design team, instead presenting the jointly-designed and jointly-patented products as if they were his unconditional individual accomplishment
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Attribution integrity requires that when engineers list prior-employer work products on qualification documents, they accurately represent not only the prior employer context but also the collaborative team structure that produced the work; omitting co-equal team members' roles misrepresents the engineer's unconditional ownership of the intellectual achievement
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
sourcetext: While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
tensionresolution: Attribution integrity requires disclosure of team context; Engineer A may legitimately claim credit for his individual contribution as one of six co-equal designers but not for the whole
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: While working for Employer X, Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.744041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Qualification_Representation_Standard
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:38:08.967136+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:38:08.967136+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
usedby: Engineer A when preparing and submitting resume to Employer Y
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to accurately represent his qualifications, experience, and individual contributions when submitting a resume to Employer Y; prohibits overstating personal responsibility for team-designed patented products
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.398400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of the products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the ethical analysis change if Engineer A made a unique or disproportionately large contribution to the joint design work, even though all six engineers held equal formal rank and shared patent credit?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: What affirmative obligation, if any, does Engineer A have to proactively disclose the team composition and each member's relative contribution on his resume, beyond merely refraining from implying sole authorship?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does Employer Y bear any independent ethical or professional responsibility to verify the accuracy of resume claims before making a hiring decision based on them, and does that responsibility mitigate or shift any portion of Engineer A's ethical culpability?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Are there professional consequences beyond the ethical finding — such as disciplinary action, license revocation, or civil liability — that should attach to Engineer A's resume misrepresentation, and does the Board's analysis adequately address the downstream harms to the five co-designers whose contributions were erased?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle permitting contextual resume emphasis — as established in Case 72-11 — conflict with the prohibition on technically true but misleading statements when an engineer selectively foregrounds his participation in joint work without explicitly claiming sole authorship but without disclosing team composition?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How should the principle of calibrating ethical severity based on intentional versus inadvertent misrepresentation be reconciled with the principle that omission of a material fact — regardless of intent — constitutes a prohibited misrepresentation under the progressive code standard?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle protecting employers from deceptive resume representations — which focuses on Employer Y's right to accurate information — conflict with the principle of intellectual integrity in authorship — which focuses on the five co-designers' right to credit — and if so, which interest should drive the ethical analysis?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle that competitive employment pressure provides no justification for misrepresentation conflict with the principle of omission materiality threshold — in that the threshold for what constitutes a material omission may itself be influenced by the competitive norms of the employment market in which resumes are evaluated?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of honesty by implying sole authorship of jointly designed patented products on their resume, regardless of whether the implication was strategically advantageous in a competitive job market?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, did the aggregate harm caused by Engineer A's misleading resume — including erosion of trust in engineering credentials, disadvantage to five co-designers whose contributions were erased, and potential misallocation of Employer Y's hiring decision — outweigh any personal career benefit Engineer A might have gained?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 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 intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer when they chose to structure their resume in a way that obscured the collaborative nature of their design work, and what does this choice reveal about their character as a professional?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's progressive tightening of resume representation standards — from prohibiting false statements to prohibiting misleading implications — reflect a Kantian recognition that the duty of honesty extends not merely to literal truth but to the reasonable inferences a recipient will draw, and did Engineer A violate this expanded duty?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.395939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's resume have been considered ethically compliant if, instead of implying sole authorship, they had listed the patented products with an explicit parenthetical notation such as 'co-designed with a five-member engineering team,' thereby preserving accurate credit attribution while still highlighting their personal contribution?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had submitted the same misleading resume but Employer Y had independently verified the team-based nature of the design work through reference checks before making a hiring decision — would the ethical violation still stand even if no practical harm to Employer Y resulted?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Had Engineer A been the lead designer among the six-member team — holding a formally recognized coordinating role even if equal in rank — would the ethical calculus regarding implied sole authorship have shifted, and at what threshold of individual contribution does implying primary responsibility become permissible rather than misleading?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had disclosed the team-based nature of the design work verbally during the job interview with Employer Y rather than correcting the resume itself, would that subsequent oral clarification have retroactively cured the ethical violation embedded in the written resume submission, or does the initial act of submitting a misleading document constitute an independent and irremediable breach?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.396252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393577
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.394382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T16:10:36.393811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Resume Competitive Pressure Context — Employment Environment Framing
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineering employment resume in competitive job market
balancingwith: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledges the intense competitive pressure on job applicants to emphasize favorable qualifications but holds that this pressure does not override the professional honesty obligation to accurately represent qualifications, particularly where the misrepresentation is intentional and material
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Competitive employment pressure is a recognized contextual factor that informs the degree-of-emphasis permissibility analysis, but does not excuse intentional misrepresentation designed to obscure material facts about the nature of an engineer's contributions
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression upon those in a position of responsibility in the hiring process.
tensionresolution: The Board acknowledges competitive pressure as a mitigating context while maintaining that it cannot justify intentional deception; the degree-of-emphasis permissibility principle marks the outer boundary of what competitive pressure can excuse
textreferences: Job seekers take great pains to stress those aspects of their educational and employment history which demonstrate their suitability for the particular employment position in question.
textreferences: The importance of the employment resume cannot be overstated.
textreferences: Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression upon those in a position of responsibility in the hiring process.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.750777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Resume Employer Screening Function Non-Deception Protective Purpose Constraint
type: ResumeEmphasisPermissibleBoundaryNon-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER articulated the protective purpose of the non-deception provision in the resume context — protecting employers from being tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to unqualified persons — as the normative foundation for evaluating the permissible boundary of resume emphasis
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A / Engineers generally
constraintclass: Resume Emphasis Permissible Boundary Non-Deception Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineers are constrained in their resume representations by the protective purpose of the non-deception provision — which exists to protect prospective employers from being deceived about an applicant's competence for important engineering decisions — such that any resume representation that would cause a prospective employer to entrust important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them crosses the permissible boundary of emphasis into impermissible misrepresentation.
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:51:28.898613+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.a; BER Case No. 72-11 (protective purpose analysis); BER Case No. 86-6
sourcetext: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them.
temporalscope: Whenever an engineer prepares and submits a resume or professional qualification statement to a prospective employer
textreferences: The importance of the employment resume cannot be overstated. It should therefore not be surprising that the contents of a resume can have an enormous impact upon the success of an employment applicant being considered for a position.
textreferences: The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them.
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.754918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Resume Selective Emphasis Misrepresentation Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
type: ResumeSelectiveEmphasisMisrepresentationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Description of patented product design work
appliedto: Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
balancingwith: Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's resume, through selective framing that omits the team context, creates a materially false overall impression that he was the sole or primary designer of the patented products, even if individual statements about his participation are technically accurate
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on selective emphasis misrepresentation applies with full force when an engineer omits the collaborative team context from descriptions of joint work; the overall portrait conveyed — sole designer — does not correspond to the actual experience — one of six co-equal contributors
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Resume Selective Emphasis Misrepresentation Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
tensionresolution: The Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle permits favorable framing of genuine individual contributions but does not permit omitting co-equal team members' roles entirely; Engineer A's conduct exceeds permissible emphasis and constitutes prohibited misrepresentation
textreferences: Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.743520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Submitting Misleading Resume
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.737752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Submitting Misleading Resume → Misleading Resume Received
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.738112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Resume
type: TechnicallyTrueButMisleadingStatementProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's resume submitted to Employer Y
balancingwith: Legitimate self-promotion
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's resume statements about the patented products may be technically accurate in that he did participate in their design, but the framing deliberately creates a false impression of sole personal responsibility, exploiting the literal truth of his participation to obscure the collaborative reality
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 135
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 135
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T15:41:30.244787+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical standard is not whether each statement is literally true but whether the overall impression conveyed is accurate; implying sole responsibility through selective framing while technically having participated in the design constitutes the type of artful deception this principle prohibits
invokedby: Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
principleclass: Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
tensionresolution: The prohibition on technically-true-but-misleading statements applies regardless of the employment-seeking context; the overall impression of sole authorship is false and therefore unethical
textreferences: Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
wasattributedto: Case 135 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.743885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

expanded Code language (post-Case 72-11, pre-Case 79-5) before New Section II.5.a (post-Case 79-5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction

old Code provision 3(e) governing Case 72-11 before expanded Code language prohibiting misleading/deceptive statements (governing Case 79-5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T15:57:44.755396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 135 Extraction