ProEthica Case 14 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-06-05T09:38:22.484365
title: Providing Incomplete, Self-Serving Advice
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case 95-5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case to establish the principle that engineers must provide complete and objective reports, and that intentional disregard or selective use of information in engineering reports is unethical.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

BER Case 99-8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The Board cited this case as relatively analogous to establish that submitting incomplete work product without disclosing its incompleteness is clearly unethical, paralleling Engineer A's omission of relevant delivery methods.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Case 14 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 6
total elements: 11
synthesis literal: hasTimepoints
synthesis literal: temporalConsistency
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Advisory Memo Preparation
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Advisory Memo Preparation
comment: By rendering free professional services, Engineer A violates the prohibition on using complimentary work to secure future contracts, and this violation matters causally because the free services rendered become a direct basis for the BER ethical finding against the engineer.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Biased Method Recommendation
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Biased Method Recommendation
comment: Steering the city toward a particular method that benefits Engineer A creates a conflict of interest and undermines faithful agency to the client, and this distortion compounds the harm by directly triggering the self-promotional credential inclusion that follows.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Informal Guidance Request
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Informal Guidance Request
comment: Although the city administrator's request carries no direct normative violation, it initiates the advisory engagement that sets every downstream action in motion, making responsiveness to public need the foundational value whose exercise opens the door to the ethical problems that follow.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Selective Scope Omission
type: NamedIndividual
analyzes action: Selective Scope Omission
comment: Omitting relevant delivery options from the memo narrows the city's decision space in a way that serves the engineer's interests rather than the client's, violating completeness and objectivity obligations whose breach is serious enough to independently produce an adverse BER ethical finding.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Self-Promotional Credential In
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Embedding credentials in a memo framed as neutral advice misrepresents the document's purpose and violates prohibitions on using gifts or free services to secure work, converting what was already an ethically compromised memo into an undisclosed solicitation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 302
answers question4: 303
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that omitting relevant information was unethical, Engineer A's selective disclosure was compounded by the specific vulnerability of the recipient. Because City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer, they lacked any independent means of detecting that two of four approved delivery methods had been silently excluded from the analysis. This asymmetry of expertise created a heightened duty of candor: the less technically equipped the client, the more complete and transparent the advisory communication must be. Engineer A's failure to disclose the full option set was therefore not merely an incomplete analysis but a structurally misleading one, because a non-engineer client would have no basis to question what was absent from the memo. The ethical violation is thus more serious than it would have been had the memo been delivered to a technically sophisticated client capable of independently recognizing the omission.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that omitting relevant information was unethical applies with particular force to the exclusion of Construction-Manager-at-Risk, because that omission carried a second-order ethical dimension the Board did not address. Under the applicable funding source, if City B had selected Construction-Manager-at-Risk, the funding agency would have required the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record to be two distinct entities — a constraint that would have directly disqualified Engineer A's firm from serving in its preferred combined role. By omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the memo entirely, Engineer A avoided having to disclose this regulatory constraint, which would have revealed a concrete, project-specific reason why that method was disadvantageous to Engineer A's business interests. The omission of Construction-Manager-at-Risk was therefore not merely an analytical gap but a strategically motivated suppression of a funding constraint that was directly material to understanding Engineer A's conflict of interest. This constitutes a separate and aggravated dimension of the ethical violation beyond the general incompleteness finding.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding of an ethical violation for omitting relevant information implicitly raises, but does not resolve, the question of whether Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose their conflict of interest before or at the time of delivering the advisory memo — independent of the completeness of the options analysis itself. Even if Engineer A had included all four delivery methods with equal rigor, the undisclosed financial interest in the recommended method would have remained a separate ethical problem. The duty to disclose a conflict of interest is not satisfied merely by producing a technically complete analysis; it requires explicit, upfront acknowledgment that the advisor stands to benefit commercially from the client's adoption of the recommended course of action. Engineer A's failure to make this disclosure deprived City Administrator of the information necessary to weigh the advice critically or to seek a second opinion, and this failure is analytically distinct from — and in addition to — the incomplete options analysis the Board identified.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that recommending Progressive-Design-Build was ethical provided the reasoning was objective, valid, and comparative is correct as a conditional proposition, but the condition was not met in this case. The Board's framing implies that the recommendation itself is separable from the process that produced it, but in practice the two cannot be cleanly divorced. A recommendation that emerges from a selectively framed analysis — one that excluded two of four approved methods without explanation — cannot be retroactively rendered objective simply because the recommended method might have prevailed in a complete analysis. The ethical validity of the recommendation is inseparable from the integrity of the analytical process that generated it. Because the process was compromised by selective omission and undisclosed conflict of interest, the recommendation itself carries the taint of that process, and the Board's conditional approval should be understood as describing what Engineer A should have done rather than validating what Engineer A actually did.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conditional approval of recommending a method within Engineer A's own service capabilities does not resolve the deeper tension between the advisory role and the prospective vendor role that Engineer A simultaneously occupied. When an engineer provides unsolicited advisory services to a prospective client without a contractual relationship, and then recommends the delivery method under which they are best positioned to compete for work, the structural conflict of interest is not neutralized by the quality of the technical reasoning. The advisory role carries an implicit representation of disinterested expertise; the vendor role carries an inherent financial stake in the outcome. These roles are not inherently irreconcilable, but they can only be ethically combined through full upfront disclosure of the conflict, explicit acknowledgment that the client may wish to seek independent advice, and a demonstrably complete and balanced analysis. Engineer A satisfied none of these conditions, meaning the dual-role problem was never resolved and the conditional ethical approval the Board described was never actually achieved.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 5 b
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 304
answers question4: 404
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's finding that including marketing materials and project references was not unethical in isolation requires important qualification when considered in the full context of the engagement. The Board appears to have evaluated the credential inclusion as a standalone act, but its ethical character cannot be assessed in isolation from the circumstances in which it occurred: an unsolicited advisory memo, prepared without compensation, delivered to a non-engineer public official, in the absence of any contractual relationship, recommending the delivery method under which Engineer A's firm was best positioned to compete. In this context, the inclusion of project summaries and references functioned not merely as transparent disclosure of qualifications but as a commercial inducement embedded within what was presented as objective professional advice. The absence of a contractual relationship is particularly significant: when an engineer provides free advisory services and simultaneously promotes their own credentials to secure future work, the combined effect approaches the kind of indirect contribution or gift to influence a professional decision that the applicable code provisions are designed to prohibit. The Board's finding that this was not unethical in isolation should not be read to mean it was unethical in combination with the other conduct, and a complete ethical assessment requires treating the credential inclusion as one element of a pattern rather than an isolated act.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 401
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer A to recommend progressive design build is the best choice, as long as reasons are objective, described, valid, and compared against all available and appropriate delivery methods.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose to City Administrator that Engineer A's firm stood to benefit financially from the recommended project delivery method, and this obligation arose at the moment Engineer A accepted the advisory request — not merely upon formal contract execution. The absence of a contractual relationship does not diminish this duty; if anything, it heightens it, because without a formal engagement structure, City Administrator had no procedural mechanism to prompt or require such disclosure. When an engineer voluntarily assumes an advisory role, the ethical duties of objectivity and candor attach to that role regardless of whether compensation is involved. Engineer A's failure to disclose the conflict of interest at the outset of the advisory engagement constitutes a standalone ethical violation independent of the incomplete options analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer A bears a heightened duty of candor and completeness precisely because City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer and therefore lacked the technical capacity to independently evaluate whether the memo's scope was complete, whether the omitted methods were materially relevant, or whether Engineer A's recommendation was shaped by self-interest. The asymmetry of technical knowledge between Engineer A and City Administrator is not a neutral background condition — it is an ethically significant factor that amplifies Engineer A's responsibility to ensure the advisory memo was comprehensive and unbiased. A sophisticated engineering client might have recognized that Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk were absent from the analysis and demanded their inclusion; City Administrator had no basis to make that demand. This asymmetry means that Engineer A's selective omission was more harmful in practice than it would have been in a technically peer-to-peer advisory context, and the Board's finding of unethical conduct in Conclusion 1 is further reinforced by this heightened duty.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A bore a separate and distinct obligation to disclose the funding agency's requirement that the Construction-Manager-at-Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities when presenting Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a delivery option. This regulatory constraint was directly material to City B's decision-making and to Engineer A's own eligibility under that method. By omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the analysis entirely, Engineer A avoided having to make this disclosure — but the omission of the method does not cure the underlying ethical problem; it compounds it. Had Engineer A included Construction-Manager-at-Risk and disclosed the separation requirement, City Administrator would have received a complete picture of both the method's availability and Engineer A's limited role under it. The failure to disclose this funding constraint constitutes a separate violation of the duty to issue objective and truthful professional reports, beyond the general incompleteness finding in Board Conclusion 1.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 b
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The provision of a detailed, unsolicited advisory memo without compensation, in a context where Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B and stood to benefit from the recommended delivery method, raises a serious question under the prohibition on offering contributions or gifts to influence professional decisions. While the memo is not a monetary gift, it constitutes a thing of professional value — substantive engineering analysis — provided free of charge in a manner structurally designed to position Engineer A favorably for a future contract. The ethical concern is not merely that Engineer A provided free services, but that the free services were selectively framed to advantage Engineer A's preferred outcome. This pattern — providing free, strategically incomplete advisory work to a non-engineer public official in order to shape a procurement decision — is functionally analogous to an indirect inducement and warrants scrutiny under Code Section II.5.b., even if it does not constitute a direct monetary contribution.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The principle that an engineer should limit advisory scope to areas within their own expertise does not override the obligation to present all available and approved delivery methods to a client seeking a complete options analysis. These principles are not in genuine conflict when properly understood: Engineer A was not required to offer to perform services under Design-Bid-Build or Fixed-Price-Design-Build, but was required to identify those methods as approved options, describe their general characteristics, and explain why they were or were not recommended for City B's project. An engineer's competence boundary governs what services they may contract to perform, not what information they may convey in an advisory capacity. The selective omission of two methods cannot be justified on competence grounds; it can only be explained by self-interest, which is precisely the conflict the Board identified in Conclusion 1.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202 and Q303: The dual role of disinterested technical advisor and prospective service provider is not inherently irreconcilable, but it can only be ethically maintained through full upfront disclosure of the conflict of interest. Without such disclosure, the advisory role is structurally compromised from the outset, because the client — particularly a non-engineer public official — cannot calibrate the weight to give the advice without knowing the advisor's financial stake in the outcome. Engineer A's failure to disclose this dual role before or at the time of providing the memo means that City Administrator received what appeared to be neutral expert guidance but was in fact advocacy dressed as analysis. From a virtue ethics perspective, this reflects a failure of practical wisdom: a professionally virtuous engineer would have recognized that the appearance of objectivity, without its substance, is itself a form of deception toward a client who lacks the tools to pierce that appearance.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: A professional report can be materially false and ethically deficient even when every individual statement it contains is technically accurate, if the selective omission of relevant information creates a false overall impression in the mind of a non-expert reader. Engineer A's memo may have contained no factually incorrect statements about Design-Bid-Build or Progressive-Design-Build, yet by silently omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, it conveyed the false impression that only two approved methods existed or were viable. This is precisely the kind of structural misrepresentation that Code Section II.3.a. is designed to prevent: the duty to be objective and truthful in professional reports is not satisfied merely by avoiding false statements, but requires that the report as a whole not mislead the reader. The Board's finding in Conclusion 1 implicitly recognizes this principle, and it should be understood as establishing that omission-based misrepresentation is a violation of the truthfulness obligation even in the absence of affirmative falsehood.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301 and Q302: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's omission of two of four approved delivery methods constitutes a structural breach of the categorical duty of honesty regardless of whether Progressive-Design-Build was objectively the superior choice for City B's project. The deontological analysis does not permit consequentialist justification: even if the recommended method would have produced the best outcome for City B, the manner in which the recommendation was reached — through selective framing that concealed alternatives — violated Engineer A's duty to provide complete and truthful professional advice. From a consequentialist standpoint, the harm is compounded by the public funding context: City B's selection of a delivery method influences how public resources are allocated, and a procurement decision shaped by an incomplete, self-interested analysis risks locking a municipality into a suboptimal contractual structure with no independent basis for comparison. The convergence of both frameworks on an adverse ethical judgment strengthens the Board's finding in Conclusion 1.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 b
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q304: The inclusion of self-promotional project summaries and references in an advisory memo provided without a contractual relationship and without compensation is more ethically problematic than the Board's Conclusion 3 suggests when considered in its full context. While the Board found the credential inclusion not unethical in isolation, the combination of free services, selective analysis favoring Engineer A's preferred method, and appended self-promotional materials creates a composite pattern that functions as an indirect inducement — each element individually defensible, but collectively constituting an effort to influence City Administrator's procurement decision through professional services rather than through transparent competition. Code Section II.5.b.'s prohibition on indirect contributions to influence professional decisions should be read to encompass this kind of structured advisory-plus-marketing package when delivered free of charge to a non-engineer public official in the absence of any existing contractual relationship. The Board's finding in Conclusion 3 should therefore be understood as narrowly limited to the credential inclusion viewed in isolation, and should not be read to immunize the overall pattern of conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build would have been ethically sound if Engineer A had disclosed the conflict of interest upfront, evaluated all four approved delivery methods with equal analytical rigor, and then concluded — on objective grounds — that Progressive-Design-Build was the best fit for City B's wastewater project. This counterfactual is important because it clarifies that the Board's Conclusion 2 is not merely aspirational: it identifies a specific and achievable standard of ethical compliance. The ethical deficiency in Engineer A's actual conduct was not the recommendation itself, but the process by which it was reached and presented. A conflict of interest, once disclosed, does not disqualify an engineer from providing advice; it simply requires that the advice be demonstrably objective and complete so that the client can weigh it with full knowledge of the advisor's stake in the outcome.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q402: Engineer A's failure to consider referring City Administrator to a neutral third-party resource or an independent engineer for the delivery method analysis is itself ethically significant, though it does not rise to the level of a standalone violation. When an engineer recognizes — or should recognize — that their personal financial interest in the outcome of an advisory engagement creates a structural conflict that cannot be fully neutralized through disclosure alone, the professionally virtuous course of action is to consider whether referral to a disinterested party better serves the client's interests. Engineer A's decision to proceed with the advisory memo rather than recommend an independent analysis reflects a failure of the practical wisdom expected of a licensed professional engineer, particularly given the public funding context and the non-engineer status of City Administrator. While the Board did not address this alternative, it represents the most conservative and ethically unambiguous path Engineer A could have taken.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q403: Including Construction-Manager-at-Risk in the analysis with a clear disclosure that the funding agency's separation requirement would preclude Engineer A's firm from serving as both the CM-at-Risk and the Engineer of Record would have substantially transformed the ethical character of the memo, though it would not have fully resolved all ethical concerns. Such a disclosure would have demonstrated that Engineer A was willing to present options that limited their own commercial opportunity, which is strong evidence of objectivity. However, the memo would still have required inclusion of Fixed-Price-Design-Build and disclosure of Engineer A's conflict of interest with respect to Progressive-Design-Build to be fully compliant. The disclosure of the CM-at-Risk separation constraint is therefore a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical compliance — it addresses one dimension of the incompleteness problem but does not substitute for the full analysis the Board required in Conclusion 1.
conclusion type: question_response
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 b
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q404: The absence of an existing contractual relationship between Engineer A and City B at the time the memo was prepared makes the self-promotional credential inclusion more ethically problematic, not less. When an engineer provides advisory services under an existing contract, the inclusion of relevant qualifications may serve a legitimate informational purpose within an established professional relationship governed by defined scope and compensation terms. In the absence of any contract, the credential inclusion serves no purpose other than to influence City B's future procurement decision — it is, in effect, unsolicited marketing embedded within what City Administrator reasonably understood to be neutral technical advice. This conflation of advisory and promotional functions, delivered free of charge to a non-engineer public official, is precisely the kind of indirect mechanism that Code Section II.5.b. is designed to address, and the Board's finding in Conclusion 3 should be read narrowly rather than as a general endorsement of credential inclusion in unsolicited advisory contexts.
conclusion type: question_response
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 404
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: It was not unethical to include marketing materials that display Engineer A’s firm’s qualifications.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A Professional Competence Advisory and Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty was not resolved in Engineer A's favor. While it might seem reasonable for an engineer to limit advisory scope to methods within their own expertise, the Board's finding makes clear that the duty of completeness overrides any self-imposed scope limitation rooted in personal qualification. An engineer advising a non-engineer public official on all approved funding options cannot ethically narrow that analysis to only the options they are qualified to perform. The correct resolution of this tension is not to omit methods outside one's competence, but rather to either disclose the limitation explicitly and recommend the client seek supplemental advice on those methods, or to provide a complete analysis with appropriate caveats about the engineer's own qualifications relative to each option. Choosing instead to silently omit two of four approved methods transforms a competence limitation into a structural misrepresentation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The case reveals an irreconcilable structural tension between Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity and Engineer A Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure that cannot be resolved merely by ensuring the recommended method is objectively defensible. The Board found it ethical to recommend Progressive-Design-Build provided the reasoning was objective, valid, and comparative — but this condition was never met because the conflict of interest was never disclosed and the comparative analysis was never complete. This case teaches that Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity and Engineer A Objectivity Advisory are not independent principles that can be satisfied in isolation: objectivity in the final recommendation is undermined at the root when the framing of the analysis is shaped by undisclosed self-interest. The two principles can only be reconciled through upfront disclosure of the conflict, followed by a genuinely complete and comparative analysis. Without that disclosure, even a technically sound recommendation carries an ethical defect that no post-hoc justification can cure.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation and Engineer A Honesty Incomplete Memo reveals a critical principle: technical accuracy in individual statements does not satisfy the duty of truthfulness when selective omission produces a materially false overall impression. Every factual claim in Engineer A's memo may have been accurate, yet the memo as a whole was misleading because it presented a two-option landscape to a non-engineer client who had no independent means of knowing that four options existed. This case establishes that Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation must be understood holistically — it governs the impression conveyed by the totality of a professional communication, not merely the literal accuracy of its component parts. The principle of Engineer A Complete Options Analysis therefore functions as a necessary operational condition for satisfying Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation: completeness is not a separate, additive duty but an integral component of honesty itself. The heightened vulnerability of City Administrator Non-Engineer Client amplifies this obligation, because the asymmetry of expertise between advisor and recipient increases the potential for omission to function as effective deception.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
synthesis literal: citationProvenance
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 b
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A Objectivity Advisory and Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension was left unresolved by the Board, which addressed the self-promotional credential inclusion in isolation rather than examining the structural conflict created by the provision of free advisory services to a prospective client. This case teaches that these two principles exist in a relationship of mutual contamination: the very act of providing unsolicited free advisory services to a non-client creates a structural incentive — securing future work — that is incompatible with the independence required for objective advice. Engineer A Objectivity Advisory cannot be fully satisfied in a context where Engineer A Free Services Extension has already established a commercial dynamic. The Board's finding that credential inclusion was not unethical in isolation does not resolve this deeper tension, because the ethical problem is not the credential inclusion per se but the overall architecture of an advisory engagement designed to position Engineer A as the preferred provider. This case suggests that when an engineer provides free advisory services to a prospective client on a question where the engineer has a financial stake in the outcome, the engineer bears an affirmative obligation under Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to make that structural conflict explicit before the advice is delivered, or to decline the advisory role entirely.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: The case demonstrates that Engineer A Funding Constraint Disclosure and Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty are not merely parallel obligations but are hierarchically ordered: the duty to disclose regulatory constraints that affect the viability of a delivery option is a precondition for the completeness of the options analysis itself. By omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the memo without disclosing the funding agency's requirement that the CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record be separate entities — a constraint that would have disqualified Engineer A from serving in both roles — Engineer A committed two compounding ethical violations. First, the omission of the option itself violated Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty. Second, even if the option had been included, omitting the regulatory constraint that would have affected Engineer A's own eligibility would have constituted a separate violation of Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Engineer A Transparency Advisory Memo. This layered structure of obligation means that full ethical compliance required not only listing all four methods but also disclosing the specific regulatory constraint that intersected with Engineer A's own financial interest — a disclosure that would have been particularly material to City Administrator Non-Engineer Client, who lacked the expertise to independently identify this constraint.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A provide a free advisory memo to the city, or decline and recommend a formal selection process?
focus: A city administrator asks Engineer A for informal guidance on a water system project. Engineer A must decide whether to respond with a free advisory memo or to decline and direct the city to a formal procurement process. Providing the memo at no charge creates the foundational ethical problem: it constitutes a gratuitous professional service rendered with the intent, or at least the effect, of positioning Engineer A for the subsequent paid engagement.
option1: Engineer A declines to prepare the memo at no charge and instead advises the city administrator to initiate a formal engineer selection process, preserving competitive fairness and avoiding the appearance of using complimentary work to secure future contracts.
option2: Engineer A prepares and delivers a complimentary advisory memo in response to the informal request, rendering professional services without compensation and thereby opening the door to the downstream ethical violations identified by the BER.
option3: Engineer A prepares the memo but explicitly charges a nominal fee and discloses in writing that the engagement does not confer any preference for future work, partially mitigating the free-services concern while still responding to the public need.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Must Engineer A include all relevant delivery and financing options in the advisory memo, or may Engineer A limit the memo to options that align with Engineer A's preferred method?
focus: Having decided to prepare the advisory memo, Engineer A must choose whether to present all relevant project delivery and financing options available to the city or to omit alternatives that would not favor Engineer A's preferred method. The normative record shows that Engineer A's compliance with completeness and objectivity obligations was unmet, and that the engineer possessed advanced proficiency in options completeness, making the omission a deliberate rather than inadvertent choice.
option1: Engineer A prepares a memo that surveys the full range of project delivery methods and financing alternatives available to the city, with objective analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each, enabling the city to make a fully informed decision.
option2: Engineer A selectively presents only the delivery method that aligns with Engineer A's expertise and business interests, omitting alternatives that might lead the city toward a different procurement path, thereby narrowing the city's decision space in Engineer A's favor.
option3: Recognizing the conflict of interest inherent in advising on method selection while also being a potential contractor, Engineer A discloses the conflict and recommends that the city retain an independent advisor to evaluate delivery options objectively.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A recommend a project delivery method based solely on the city's needs, or may Engineer A favor a method that benefits Engineer A's own practice?
focus: Within the advisory memo, Engineer A must decide whether to recommend a particular project delivery method in a manner that is objectively justified or to steer the recommendation toward the method in which Engineer A has a competitive advantage. The causal record shows that a biased method recommendation directly triggered the subsequent self-promotional credential inclusion, compounding the ethical harm and creating a conflict of interest that was never disclosed to the city.
option1: Engineer A bases the method recommendation exclusively on an objective analysis of the city's technical requirements, budget constraints, and timeline, and discloses in writing any personal or financial interest Engineer A may have in the recommended approach.
option2: Engineer A recommends the delivery method that aligns with Engineer A's own expertise and business development interests without disclosing the conflict, presenting the recommendation as if it were a neutral, client-centered conclusion.
option3: Engineer A discloses to the city administrator that a conflict of interest prevents Engineer A from making an objective method recommendation and abstains from that portion of the analysis, suggesting the city seek independent guidance on method selection.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A include self-promotional credentials in the advisory memo, or keep the document limited to objective technical guidance?
focus: After drafting the substantive content of the memo, Engineer A must decide whether to embed credentials, qualifications, and experience highlights within the document. Because the memo was framed as neutral professional advice, inserting self-promotional material converts it into an undisclosed solicitation, violating prohibitions on using gifts or free services to secure work and misrepresenting the document's purpose to the city.
option1: Engineer A confines the memo to objective technical analysis and omits any reference to Engineer A's own qualifications, experience, or interest in performing future work, preserving the document's integrity as neutral professional advice.
option2: Engineer A incorporates a section highlighting Engineer A's relevant experience and qualifications within the advisory memo, effectively using the complimentary document as a vehicle for solicitation without disclosing that dual purpose to the city.
option3: Engineer A appends a clearly labeled, separate statement of qualifications to the memo and explicitly discloses that Engineer A is interested in being considered for the subsequent project, distinguishing the advisory content from the solicitation and allowing the city to evaluate each on its own terms.
role label: Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build equals Engineer A providing firm experience summary and references
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: equals
evidence: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
from entity text: Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build
owl time property: time:intervalEquals
to entity text: Engineer A providing firm experience summary and references
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
interval equals: Engineer A providing firm experience summary and r
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

II.3.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

II.5.b.
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A occupied an advisory role for a non-engineer client who was entirely dependent on that advice, yet no formal engagement existed that would unambiguously trigger standard conflict of interest disclosure protocols. The combination of a self-interested recommendation, a financially vulnerable client, and the absence of a contract created a structural gap in which the scope of the disclosure obligation was neither clearly satisfied nor clearly inapplicable.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A Selective Option Disclosure created a factual record in which literal accuracy and material honesty point in opposite directions, forcing a determination of whether the Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation is satisfied by the absence of false sentences or requires that the overall impression conveyed to a City Administrator Non-Engineer be accurate. The presence of Engineer A Conflict of Interest Undisclosed and the Engineer A Self-Interested Recommendation deepens the tension, because the omission was not random but served Engineer A's business interest, making it harder to treat the gap as a neutral drafting choice rather than a deliberate act of deception.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's decision to provide free services to City Administrator was not a neutral act of professional generosity but a business development strategy, and that strategic purpose infected the advisory output by giving Engineer A a concrete reason to recommend Progressive-Design-Build and omit the two methods outside Engineer A's qualification scope. The question forces analysis of whether the objectivity principle can survive the structural incentive created by the free services act, or whether the two principles collapse into a single compound violation where the gratuitous services extension is the mechanism by which objectivity fails.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the same memo that could be defended as a competent engineer recommending what they know best is also a document that a non-engineer client relied upon as a complete analysis of available options, and the City Administrator had no basis to know that two approved methods were absent. The deontological framing sharpens the question by asking whether the structural fact of omission, independent of intent or outcome, constitutes a breach of the categorical duty of honesty that engineers owe to clients who cannot independently verify the completeness of professional advice.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A occupied an advisory role toward a non-engineer client who lacked the capacity to detect the omission, making the consequentialist harm of the selective disclosure difficult to separate from the structural conflict of interest that motivated it. The combination of Selective Scope Omission, undisclosed self-interest, and public funding constraints created a factual record in which the efficiency rationale for narrowing the analysis is indistinguishable from a self-serving rationale, forcing the question of which consequence actually dominated.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the data shows a licensed engineer in an advisory role to a non-engineer client making a recommendation that happened to align precisely with the engineer's own business interest, while omitting options the engineer could not profit from. Virtue ethics surfaces the question because the framework demands that integrity and practical wisdom be visible in the reasoning process itself, not just in formal compliance, and the combination of selective disclosure, free services, and credential promotion creates a pattern that contests whether Engineer A's character met that standard.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the BER's finding that credential inclusion was not unethical in isolation left unresolved whether deontological analysis, which focuses on the nature of the act rather than its isolated outcome, reaches a different conclusion when the same act is embedded in a pattern that includes selective disclosure, biased recommendation, and free service provision. The question forces a determination of whether the duty to separate objective advice from commercial self-interest is violated by the structural composition of the memo, even absent a finding of explicit misconduct on the credential element alone.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the original BER finding bundled two distinct failures, non-disclosure and selective omission, making it unclear whether either violation was independently disqualifying or whether both had to be present for the conduct to be unethical. By positing a corrected version of the scenario where both failures are remedied, the question forces a determination of whether the underlying conflict of interest is itself an ethical barrier or merely a procedural one that transparency and completeness can resolve.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the BER finding identified what Engineer A did wrong but left open whether a structurally different choice, specifically referring the City Administrator to a neutral third party, would have satisfied all competing obligations simultaneously. The question probes whether the ethical lapse was in the content of the memo or in the prior decision to prepare any memo at all given the conflict, and whether failing to consider the referral option is itself a breach of the Advisory Role Integrity Principle.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the ethical violation in the original memo involved two distinct failures, selective omission of options and undisclosed self-interest, and the hypothetical disclosure addresses only one narrow aspect of one failure. The question forces analysis of whether a single corrective disclosure can redeem a memo that was defective on multiple independent grounds, which is genuinely uncertain because disclosure norms and completeness norms operate through different warrants and neither automatically satisfies the other.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the Gratuitous Services Prohibition Principle and the Self-Promotion Advisory Constraint both attach to the same action, the credential inclusion, but they produce different severity assessments depending on whether a prior contractual relationship existed. The absence of any contract with City B sharpens the question of whether the memo as a whole, including the credential inclusion, constituted an unsolicited inducement rather than a professional advisory communication.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer A occupied an advisory role toward a non-engineer client who was entirely dependent on Engineer A's analysis to make an informed selection, and Engineer A's memo was structurally incomplete in a way that aligned with Engineer A's own business interests. The combination of selective disclosure, an undisclosed conflict of interest, free services rendered to cultivate the relationship, and a client with no independent means to detect the omission created a situation where the gap between what was provided and what professional integrity required became ethically significant.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer A occupied an advisory role for a non-engineer client who depended entirely on Engineer A's analysis, and Engineer A's recommendation happened to align perfectly with Engineer A's own commercial interest. That alignment, combined with the selective omission of competing methods and the inclusion of Engineer A's own credentials in the memo, made it impossible to determine from the record whether the recommendation reflected objective professional judgment or self-interested advocacy.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question arose because Engineer A occupied an advisory role for a non-engineer client who was dependent on objective guidance, and Engineer A used that position to include firm credentials and project summaries that served the firm's interest in being selected for the recommended delivery method. The tension between the duty of objectivity in an advisory role and the prohibition on using advisory services as a vehicle for self-promotion created genuine uncertainty about whether the credential inclusion was professional transparency or an ethically impermissible act of self-dealing.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because Engineer A's selective omission of two delivery methods was directed at a recipient who had no professional basis to recognize the analysis as incomplete, making the City Administrator's reliance on the memo total rather than partial. The gap between what a licensed engineer would notice and what the City Administrator could detect created the contested space where the standard duty of candor may be insufficient and a heightened duty may be required.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question arose because the regulatory constraint was not merely missing information but a fact that changed the practical meaning of the option presented, making the omission potentially more serious than a general failure to cover all delivery methods. The question forces a determination of whether presenting a constrained option without its constraint is a distinct form of deception or simply one instance of the same incomplete analysis already identified.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The question emerged because Engineer A occupied two simultaneous roles, that of a responsive advisor answering a legitimate request and that of a prospective contractor with a financial interest in the outcome, and the free memo with appended credentials made it impossible to separate professional responsiveness from self-interested solicitation. The absence of any contract, combined with the inclusion of qualifications tied to the recommended method, created a factual record that fits the definition of a contribution offered to influence a professional decision, which forced the ethical question of whether the memo's form and content crossed the boundary the prohibition was designed to enforce.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because Engineer A's selective memo created a factual record in which omitting two approved options could be defended as professional restraint or condemned as a violation of the duty to give the non-engineer City Administrator a full picture. The tension is genuine rather than merely apparent because both principles draw on recognized engineering ethics norms, and neither automatically overrides the other without additional facts about whether a referral or disclosure of scope limits was offered.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: This question emerged because the same set of facts, Engineer A preparing a memo at a non-engineer administrator's request, simultaneously satisfies the data conditions for two incompatible warrants: one authorizing technical advisory service and one prohibiting undisclosed self-interested recommendation. The question of whether the roles can be reconciled without full upfront disclosure arose precisely because the data shows Engineer A never tested that reconciliation, choosing instead to act as though the advisory role and the service provider interest were not in tension at all.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide a recommendation on project delivery methods that only included two of the possible methods, without providing the complete analysis and the reasoning behind recommending the two selected methods over others?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A have an obligation to proactively disclose to City Administrator that Engineer A's firm stood to benefit financially from the recommended project delivery method before or at the time of providing the advisory memo, even in the absence of a formal contractual relationship?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Because City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer and was therefore unable to independently evaluate the completeness or objectivity of Engineer A's memo, does Engineer A bear a heightened duty of candor and completeness toward a non-engineer client compared to a technically sophisticated client?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Given that the funding source requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record to be two distinct entities, was Engineer A obligated to disclose this regulatory constraint when presenting Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a delivery option, and does omitting this constraint constitute a separate ethical violation beyond the incomplete options analysis?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the provision of a detailed advisory memo without compensation, in a context where Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B, constitute an improper extension of gratuitous services intended to secure future work, and how should this be evaluated under the prohibition on offering contributions or gifts to influence professional decisions?
question type: implicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to recommend the method for which they could provide services?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Professional Competence Advisory — which might counsel Engineer A to limit the scope of analysis to methods within their own expertise — conflict with the principle of Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty, which requires presenting all available and approved delivery methods regardless of Engineer A's qualifications to perform them?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How does the principle of Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity conflict with Engineer A Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure when Engineer A occupies a dual role as both a disinterested technical advisor and a prospective service provider, and can these roles ever be reconciled without full upfront disclosure?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation — requiring that all statements be truthful — conflict with Engineer A Honesty Incomplete Memo in a case where every individual statement in the memo may be technically accurate, yet the selective omission of two delivery methods creates a materially false overall impression for a non-engineer client?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Engineer A Objectivity Advisory — requiring neutral, evidence-based analysis — come into irreconcilable tension with Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension, given that the very act of providing free advisory services to a prospective client creates a structural incentive that undermines the independence required for objective advice?
question type: principle_tension
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to include project summaries and references to encourage selection of their firm for the recommended method for project delivery?
question type: board_explicit
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 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 and completeness when preparing the advisory memo, given that omitting two of four approved delivery methods constitutes a structural misrepresentation regardless of whether the recommended method was objectively superior?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, did the harm caused by Engineer A's selective disclosure — potentially locking City B into a suboptimal or self-serving delivery method with public funding — outweigh any efficiency benefit gained by narrowing the analysis to two methods?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 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 practical wisdom expected of a licensed engineer when they allowed personal business interest to shape the framing of an advisory memo delivered to a non-engineer public official who had no independent means of detecting the omission?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the inclusion of self-promotional credentials and project references in an unsolicited advisory memo — provided without a contractual relationship — constitute a form of indirect inducement that violates Engineer A's duty to separate objective professional advice from commercial self-interest, even if the Board found it not unethical in isolation?
question type: theoretical
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build have been ethically sound if they had disclosed their conflict of interest upfront, evaluated all four approved delivery methods with equal rigor, and then concluded that Progressive-Design-Build was the best fit for City B's wastewater project?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had referred City Administrator to a neutral third-party resource or an independent engineer for the delivery method analysis rather than preparing the memo themselves — would this have resolved the conflict of interest entirely, and does the failure to consider this alternative itself constitute an ethical lapse?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had included Construction-Manager-at-Risk in the analysis but disclosed that the funding agency's requirement for separate CM-at-Risk and Engineer of Record entities would disqualify Engineer A's firm from serving in both roles, would the inclusion of that disclosure have transformed an otherwise self-serving memo into an ethically compliant one?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Would the ethical character of Engineer A's self-promotional credential inclusion have changed if City B had an existing contractual relationship with Engineer A at the time the memo was prepared, and does the absence of any contract make the credential inclusion more or less problematic under the prohibition on indirect inducements?
question type: counterfactual
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A accepted a request to analyze all approved delivery methods and then omitted two without any disclosure, the board found that the competence limitation did not justify the omission. The board concluded that silent omission under these conditions converts a personal qualification boundary into a structural misrepresentation, regardless of whether the omitted methods were ones Engineer A could perform.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A presented what appeared to be neutral expert guidance while holding an undisclosed financial stake in the recommended delivery method, and because City Administrator lacked the technical background to recognize the conflict, the board found that Engineer A's failure to disclose the dual role constituted a failure of practical wisdom and rendered the advisory memo structurally deceptive regardless of whether any individual statement in it was technically accurate.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A presented only two of four approved methods to a non-engineer client who had no basis for knowing the analysis was incomplete, the board found that the memo's structural omission created a materially false impression, satisfying the conditions for an omission-based truthfulness violation under II.3.a. even in the absence of any affirmatively false statement.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A's omission was both a categorical breach of the duty of honesty under deontological analysis and a source of concrete public harm under consequentialist analysis, the board found that the convergence of both ethical frameworks on an adverse judgment strengthened the finding that Engineer A's conduct was ethically deficient, with the public funding context serving as a compounding factor under the consequentialist lens.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A combined free services, selective analysis, and self-promotional materials into a single advisory package delivered to a non-engineer public official with no prior contractual relationship, the board found that the overall pattern constituted an indirect inducement under II.5.b., while narrowly limiting the finding that credential inclusion alone is not unethical to that isolated element viewed outside its context.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the board identified the process rather than the outcome as the source of the ethical violation, it concluded that a recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build would have been ethically sound under the counterfactual conditions of full disclosure and complete analysis, establishing that conflict of interest does not disqualify an engineer from advising but requires that the advice be demonstrably objective and complete so the client can weigh it with full knowledge of the advisor's stake.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A's financial stake in the recommended outcome created a structural conflict that disclosure alone could not fully resolve, and because City Administrator had no independent means of evaluating the advice, the board found that Engineer A's failure to consider referring City Administrator to a neutral resource reflected a lapse in practical professional wisdom, even though that failure did not independently constitute a code violation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the memo omitted Fixed-Price-Design-Build and concealed Engineer A's financial stake in the recommended method, the board found that disclosing the CM-at-Risk separation constraint was a necessary but not sufficient remedial step, and that the ethical deficiency of the memo could not be cured by that disclosure alone.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A had no contract with City B when the memo was delivered, the board found that embedding credentials and project references in the memo conflated advisory and promotional functions in a way that Code Section II.5.b. is designed to prevent, and that the absence of a contract made the credential inclusion more ethically problematic than it would have been under an established professional relationship.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A left out two of four approved delivery methods without explanation or disclosure, and because City Administrator lacked the technical background to identify the gap, the board concluded that the memo created a materially false impression of completeness and therefore violated the engineer's duty to provide objective and truthful professional reports.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the ethical problem in this case was the incomplete analysis and the undisclosed conflict rather than the direction of the recommendation itself, the board found that recommending Progressive-Design-Build was permissible in principle, provided the engineer met the conditions of full disclosure and complete comparative analysis that were absent from the actual memo.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the recommendation was generated through a process that excluded two approved methods without explanation and concealed a financial stake in the outcome, the board found that the recommendation itself carried the taint of that process. The board's conditional approval describes what an ethical recommendation would have required, not a validation of what Engineer A actually did.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
comment: The board found that including qualifications and project references was not independently unethical, but immediately qualified that finding in C2 by explaining that the absence of a contract with City B made the credential inclusion more problematic rather than less, and that the Conclusion 3 finding should not be read as a general endorsement of self-promotional content in unsolicited advisory memos.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because City Administrator was not a licensed engineer and had no independent basis to detect that two delivery methods had been silently excluded, the board concluded that Engineer A's duty of candor was heightened relative to what it would have been with a technically sophisticated client, and that the omission under these conditions constituted a structurally misleading communication rather than merely an incomplete one.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the funding source's requirement that the CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record be separate entities would have directly disqualified Engineer A from its preferred role, and because Engineer A omitted that method without disclosing this constraint, the board found that the omission was not merely an analytical gap but a strategically motivated suppression that constituted a separate and aggravated dimension of the ethical violation.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A stood to benefit commercially from City B's adoption of the recommended delivery method and never disclosed this interest, the board concluded that a separate ethical violation existed independent of the completeness of the options analysis, because the undisclosed conflict deprived City Administrator of the information needed to evaluate the advice with appropriate skepticism.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A never disclosed the conflict of interest and never completed the comparative analysis, the board concluded that the structural tension between Advisory Role Integrity and Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure was irreconcilable under the facts as they stood, and that the only path to reconciliation would have been upfront disclosure followed by a complete analysis.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A's memo was technically accurate in its individual claims but omitted two of four approved delivery methods in a communication directed at a non-engineer client who had no basis to question what was absent, the board concluded that the Truthfulness Obligation was violated at the level of the overall impression conveyed, and that completeness functions as a necessary operational condition for satisfying that obligation rather than as a separate duty.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A provided free advisory services to a prospective client without disclosing the financial incentive that motivated the engagement, the board's finding that credential inclusion was not unethical in isolation left unresolved the deeper structural problem: the advisory engagement was architecturally designed to secure future work, and that design made genuine objectivity impossible regardless of whether any individual statement in the memo was accurate.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Given that Engineer A omitted both the CM-at-Risk option and the funding agency rule that would have disqualified Engineer A from serving in both roles, the board concluded that two compounding violations occurred: the omission of the delivery method violated the complete options analysis duty, and the separate omission of the regulatory constraint that intersected with Engineer A's financial interest violated the conflict of interest disclosure obligation in a way that was especially material because the client had no independent means of detecting it.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A never disclosed the dual role and never satisfied any of the conditions that would have made the combination of advisor and prospective vendor ethically permissible, the board found that the structural conflict of interest was never resolved. The conditional ethical approval the board described remained a hypothetical standard that Engineer A's actual conduct did not meet.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the credential inclusion did not occur in isolation but as part of a pattern that included free services, selective omission, and undisclosed financial interest, the board's finding that it was not unethical in isolation does not resolve its ethical character in combination with the other conduct. Assessed as one element of the full pattern, the credential inclusion approaches the kind of indirect inducement the applicable code provisions are designed to prohibit.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A accepted the advisory request while holding a financial interest in the recommended outcome and never disclosed that interest, the board found a standalone ethical violation independent of the incomplete options analysis. The absence of a formal contract made the violation more serious, not less, because it removed the only procedural safeguard that might otherwise have prompted disclosure.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because City Administrator was a non-engineer who had no basis to detect that two approved delivery methods were missing from the memo, the board found that Engineer A's standard duty of candor was heightened in this context, and the selective omission was therefore more harmful than it would have been in a peer-to-peer advisory setting.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because the funding agency's separation requirement was directly material to City B's options and to Engineer A's own role, the board found that omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the memo was not a neutral editorial choice but a mechanism that allowed Engineer A to avoid a disclosure that would have revealed a limitation on Engineer A's eligibility, constituting a separate violation beyond the general incompleteness finding.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because Engineer A provided free, strategically incomplete advisory work to a non-engineer public official in a context where Engineer A had a direct financial interest in the recommended outcome, the board found that the memo was functionally analogous to an indirect inducement and warranted scrutiny under the prohibition on gifts or contributions intended to influence professional decisions, even absent a direct monetary transfer.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
comment: Because City Administrator asked for an analysis of delivery methods and not merely a list of services Engineer A could provide, the board found that Engineer A's competence boundaries governed what Engineer A could contract to perform but did not justify omitting methods from an advisory memo, and that the actual explanation for the omission was self-interest rather than any legitimate competence constraint.
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/14#Action_Informal_Guidance_Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/14#Action_Biased_Method_Recommendation

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/14#Action_Selective_Scope_Omission

Causal edge (causedByAction)
type: Derivation
comment: property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: http://proethica.org/cases/14#Action_Advisory_Memo_Preparation

cure period before test hammer drops before count began
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: that following cure, the test hammer was dropped several times before the count began
from entity text: cure period
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: test hammer drops before count began
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: test hammer drops before count began
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.681438+00:00
value: An engineer serving in a purely advisory capacity must not allow interest in obtaining subsequent work to shape the advice given; doing so corrupts the advisory relationship and deprives the client of the independent judgment they sought.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.680763+00:00
value: An engineer serving in a purely advisory capacity must not allow interest in obtaining subsequent work to shape the advice given; doing so corrupts the advisory relationship and deprives the client of the independent judgment they sought.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.680985+00:00
value: The principle required Engineer A to analyze all four approved delivery methods and to disclose and justify any exclusion.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.62
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.681547+00:00
value: The principle required Engineer A to either maintain clear separation between the advisory recommendation and any interest in follow-on work, or to disclose explicitly that the recommendation was not independent of Engineer A's business interest in the project.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.681328+00:00
value: The NSPE Code prohibition on offering valuable consideration to secure work applies to the extension of free professional services that are structured to benefit the engineer's subsequent engagement prospects.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.681187+00:00
value: The completeness obligation required Engineer A to either provide a full analysis of all four methodologies with pros and cons or to refer City B to neutral resources, not to submit a partial analysis that served Engineer A's interest in subsequent work.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.681647+00:00
value: An engineer serving in a purely advisory capacity must not allow interest in obtaining subsequent work to shape the advice given; doing so corrupts the advisory relationship and deprives the client of the independent judgment they sought.

Defeasibility edge from interpretation
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:39.680884+00:00
value: Objectivity required Engineer A to present all relevant methodologies without bias toward the option that would generate subsequent work for Engineer A.

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Informal Advisory Relationship Active; Engineer A Advising Public Client

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Informal Advisory Relationship Active; Engineer A Advising Public Client

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: No Contractual Relationship with City B

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Free Advisory Services Rendered; Potential Inducement State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Self-Serving Recommendation State; Conflict of Interest Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Self-Serving Recommendation State; Conflict of Interest Active

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest; Compromised Advisory Integrity

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Disinterested Advisory Relationship

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Incomplete Information Held by Client; Decision Scope Artificially Reduced

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Incomplete Information Held by Client; Decision Scope Artificially Reduced

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Full Option Set Available to City B

Fluent edge (terminates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Full Option Set Available to City B

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Uncompensated Professional Services Provided; Free Services as Competitive Advantage

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Four Delivery Methods Approved; Full Option Set Available to City B

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Incomplete Information State; Owner Decision Bias State

Fluent edge (initiates)
type: Derivation
comment: property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
value: Incomplete Information State; Owner Decision Bias State

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

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

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional Integrity; Public Welfare

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional Integrity; Public Welfare

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Objectivity and Truthfulness; Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest; Faithful Agency to Client

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Objectivity and Truthfulness; Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest; Faithful Agency to Client

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional Integrity; Faithful Agency to Client

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional Integrity; Faithful Agency to Client

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Completeness of Information; Objectivity and Truthfulness; Inclusion of All Relevant and Pertinent Information

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional Integrity; Avoidance of Deceptive Conduct

Normative edge (guidedByPrinciple)
type: Derivation
comment: property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Professional Integrity; Avoidance of Deceptive Conduct

Normative edge (violatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
value: Prohibition on Free Services to Secure Work; Objectivity and Truthfulness; Prohibition on Gifts or Valuable Consideration to Secure Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pile installation before cure period
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: that following cure, the test hammer was dropped several times before the count began (referenced in discussion of BER Case 95-5)
from entity text: pile installation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: cure period
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: cure period
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Actor relationship edge (has_provider)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_provider; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:23.843415+00:00
value: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods

Actor relationship edge (has_client)
type: Derivation
comment: relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
generated at time: 2026-06-05T09:38:23.810252+00:00
value: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B

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

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was required to provide a complete analysis of all four project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, but instead provided only a partial comparative evaluation that omitted full analysis and favored the opt

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services, without disclosing to the non-engineer City Administrator that Engineer A had a direct competitive in

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's summary memo presented an incomplete picture of the available delivery methods, creating a false impression that only two of the four approved options were viable, without disclosing the basis for excluding the other two.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to be truthful required that the advisory memo accurately represent the state of analysis, including its incompleteness, and not present a partial evaluation as though it were a complete professional assessment.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was engaged in a purely advisory capacity with no existing contractual relationship with City B, but used the advisory memo to simultaneously recommend a delivery method and market the firm's qualifications under that method, ble

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's advisory role required independence from personal interest, but Engineer A allowed the prospect of subsequent construction services work to shape the scope and content of the advisory memo, recommending the delivery method most

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build without disclosing that Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services under that delivery method and stood to benefit financially from the recommendation, depriving City B of infor

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was qualified to evaluate and provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and therefore possessed the competence to analyze all four approved delivery methods, making the omission of two opti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A did not disclose to City B the basis for excluding two of the four approved delivery methods from the analysis, nor did Engineer A disclose the firm's interest in providing construction services under the recommended method.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A omitted two of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods, Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, from the summary memo, presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide subsequent paid construction services, thereby extending free services as valuable considerati

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to provide an objective analysis of project delivery methodologies by recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent employment without disclosing that interest or providing balanced analysis.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A provided a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies that omitted full analysis of all four methodologies and excluded information unfavorable to the recommended option, mirroring the selective omission con

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods to City B in the advisory memo, rather than limiting the analysis to Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to include all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo provided to City B, and to refrain from presenting a partial analysis that omitted

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator that Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build, and therefore has a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation, before o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to provide City B with an objective, unbiased analysis of all available project delivery methods and to refrain from using the advisory memo as a vehicle to promote the firm's own construction services under the rec

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to structure the advisory memo to serve City B's interests by objectively analyzing all available delivery options, rather than recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent commercial engage

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing free advisory engineering services to City B as a vehicle to position for subsequent paid construction services under the recommended delivery method.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests when providing advisory services, placing City B's need for complete and unbiased information above Engineer A's own commercial interest in being engaged for construc

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods to City B in the advisory memo, rather than limiting the analysis to Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to include all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo provided to City B, and to refrain from presenting a partial analysis that omitted

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator all constraints imposed by the specific funding source on the available delivery methods, including the requirement that if Construction-Manager-at-Risk is selected, the Construct

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing free advisory engineering services to City B as a vehicle to position for subsequent paid construction services under the recommended delivery method.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator that Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build, and therefore has a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation, before o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to provide City B with an objective, unbiased analysis of all available project delivery methods and to refrain from using the advisory memo as a vehicle to promote the firm's own construction services under the rec

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to structure the advisory memo to serve City B's interests by objectively analyzing all available delivery options, rather than recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent commercial engage

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests when providing advisory services, placing City B's need for complete and unbiased information above Engineer A's own commercial interest in being engaged for construc

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City Administrator; City B; Engineer A

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City Administrator; City B; Engineer A

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City Administrator; City B; Engineer A

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City B; Engineer A; Funding Agency

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: City B; Engineer A; Funding Agency

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City Administrator; Other engineers who might have competed for the work

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City Administrator; Other engineers who might have competed for the work

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

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

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

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City Administrator; City as client entity

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City Administrator; City as client entity

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

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

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (affects)
type: Derivation
comment: property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
value: Engineer A; City B; City Administrator

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must disclose basis for excluding options

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City B's use of a specific funding source that restricts approved project delivery methods and imposes additional requirements such as separation of Construction Manager at Risk and Engineer of Record

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must disclose basis for excluding options

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Project delivery method selected and funding agency requirements satisfied

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Interest is not disclosed to the client

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not recommend options solely or primarily on the basis of personal gain

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide objective and unbiased professional advice

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose personal or business interest in recommended option

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Conflict of interest disclosed to client

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must disclose basis for excluding options

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City Administrator's request for a recommendation in the absence of any existing contractual engagement

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not present partial analysis as if it were complete

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose limitations in the scope of analysis provided

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not present partial analysis as if it were complete

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose limitations in the scope of analysis provided

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must disclose basis for excluding options

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must disclose basis for excluding options

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must disclose basis for excluding options

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice

State edge (activatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Interest is not disclosed to the client

State edge (activatesConstraint)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Professional must not recommend options solely or primarily on the basis of personal gain

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to provide objective and unbiased professional advice

State edge (activatesObligation)
type: Derivation
comment: property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Duty to disclose personal or business interest in recommended option

State edge (terminatedByEvent)
type: Derivation
comment: property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Conflict of interest disclosed to client

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods... Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods

Temporal relation edge (fromEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.

Temporal relation edge (toEntity)
type: Derivation
comment: property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
value: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project

City Administrator Non-Engineer
type: Non-EngineerAdministrator
type: NamedIndividual
actor: City Administrator
case involvement: The City Administrator of City B, who is not a licensed professional engineer, solicited Engineer A's recommendation on project delivery methods and received a memo that omitted one of the four approved options.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
has license: Not a licensed professional engineer
role category: provider_client
role class: Non-Engineer Administrator
role in organization: City Administrator, City B
text references: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Non-Engineer Administrator': The City Administrator functions as the client-side representative receiving professional engineering advice. This is a specialization of the Client Role, with the distinguishing attribute of lacking engineering licensure, which is ethically significant because it increases the engineer's duty of candor and completeness.
matched ontology class: ClientRole
matched ontology label: Client Role
matches existing: true
source text: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: The City Administrator of City B, who is not a licensed professional engineer, solicited Engineer A's recommendation on project delivery methods and received a memo that omitted one of the four approved options.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City Administrator Non-Engineer Client
type: Non-EngineerAdministrator
type: NamedIndividual
actor: City Administrator
case involvement: City Administrator solicited engineering advice from Engineer A on project delivery methods, acting as the client-side decision-maker without professional engineering licensure. It was not clear whether the solicitation was knowingly for donated services.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has license: None (non-engineer)
other attribute: context: Municipal administrator receiving professional engineering advisory services
role category: provider_client
role class: Non-Engineer Administrator
text references: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A
text references: It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:28.576171+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: City Administrator solicited engineering advice from Engineer A on project delivery methods, acting as the client-side decision-maker without professional engineering licensure. It was not clear whether the solicitation was knowingly for donated services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:28.576171+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City Administrator's request for a recommendation before Engineer A preparing the summary memo
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods... Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator
from entity text: City Administrator's request for a recommendation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity: Advisory Memo Preparation
to entity text: Engineer A preparing the summary memo
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Advisory Memo Preparation
interval before: Engineer A preparing the summary memo
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City B Municipal Client
type: MunicipalClient
type: NamedIndividual
actor: City B
case involvement: City B is the municipal owner commissioning wastewater system improvements and seeking professional engineering advice on project delivery method selection under a specific funding source.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
other attribute: funding_constraint: Specific funding source with four approved delivery methods
other attribute: project: Wastewater system improvements
role category: provider_client
role class: Municipal Client
role nature: Municipal government
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
text references: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.78
match reasoning: Via class 'Municipal Client': City B functions as the commissioning client for the wastewater project. The municipal government context is a specialization of the general Client Role, warranting a medium-confidence match to that parent class.
matched ontology class: ClientRole
matched ontology label: Client Role
matches existing: true
source text: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: City B is the municipal owner commissioning wastewater system improvements and seeking professional engineering advice on project delivery method selection under a specific funding source.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Completeness
type: AdvisoryScopeCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, with no existing contract with City B, was asked by the City Administrator (a non-engineer) to advise on project delivery methods for a wastewater improvement project under a specific funding source. Four methods were approved by the funding agency. Engineer A's memo identified only two, omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and recommended Progressive-Design-Build, a method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide services.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Advisory Scope Completeness Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from presenting only a subset of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods in the advisory memo to City B Administrator. The advisory role required presenting all four approved options so that City B could make an informed selection.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 (Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence) and Section III.2 (Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession)
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A prepared and submitted the advisory memo to City B Administrator
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Advisory Scope Completeness Constraint': The selective omission of options is driven by a conflict of interest and partially maps to Conflict of Interest Avoidance. However, the specific mechanism here is the completeness of advisory disclosure rather than merely the existence of a conflict, making this a variant that warrants a distinct class. The closest existing class is Conflict of Interest Avoidance but it does not capture the affirmative duty to present all options.
matched ontology class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from presenting only a subset of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods in the advisory memo to City B Administrator. The advisory role required presenting all four approved options so that City B could make an informed selection.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Objectivity
type: AdvisoryObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Advisory Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capability statement: Engineer A had the capability to structure the delivery method analysis objectively, separating the advisory role from the firm's interest in being selected to provide construction services under the recommended method.
case context: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build and included the firm's experience and references in the advisory memo, conflating the advisory function with self-promotion in a context where Engineer A stood to benefit from the client selecting that delivery method.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstrated through: The failure to maintain objectivity is evidenced by the recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build accompanied by the firm's own project experience and references, effectively using the advisory memo as a marketing document.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A had the capability to structure the delivery method analysis objectively, separating the advisory role from the firm's interest in being selected to provide construction services under the recommended method.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Objectivity Memo
type: AdvisoryObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Advisory Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to structure the advisory memo so that the analysis and recommendation reflected City B's interests rather than Engineer A's potential benefit from subsequent paid construction work.
case context: Engineer A prepared an advisory memo for City B on project delivery methods while holding a competitive interest in the outcome, and the resulting memo was partial and self-serving.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Engineer A failed to maintain advisory objectivity by recommending a delivery method that would benefit Engineer A and omitting full analysis of alternatives.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
text references: objective and truthful
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: objective and truthful
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to structure the advisory memo so that the analysis and recommendation reflected City B's interests rather than Engineer A's potential benefit from subsequent paid construction work.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Scope Advisory
type: CompetenceScopeAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A is qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk but not under Design-Bid-Build or Fixed-Price-Design-Build. This competence asymmetry created a structural bias in the advisory analysis that was not disclosed to City B Administrator.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.8
constraint class: Competence Scope Advisory Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A's uneven competence across the four approved delivery methods constrained the objectivity of the advisory analysis. Engineer A was required to disclose that the firm's qualifications were stronger for some methods than others, so that City B could assess whether the advisory analysis was complete and unbiased.
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 (Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence)
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A prepared and submitted the advisory memo
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.73
match reasoning: Via class 'Competence Scope Advisory Constraint': This maps to the existing Competence Constraint class as a variant applied specifically to the advisory context where uneven competence across options can distort the advice given. The existing class covers capability boundaries generally; this variant adds the advisory-distortion dimension. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
matched ontology class: CompetenceConstraint
matched ontology label: Competence Constraint
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's uneven competence across the four approved delivery methods constrained the objectivity of the advisory analysis. Engineer A was required to disclose that the firm's qualifications were stronger for some methods than others, so that City B could assess whether the advisory analysis was complete and unbiased.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict Recognition
type: ConflictofInterestRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Conflict of Interest Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineer A had the capability to recognize that being qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build created a competitive interest in the outcome of the advisory recommendation, triggering a disclosure obligation.
case context: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build to City B while being qualified to provide construction services under that delivery method, without disclosing the competitive interest to the City Administrator.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Engineer A's qualification to perform services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, combined with the recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build without disclosure of that qualification.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A had the capability to recognize that being qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build created a competitive interest in the outcome of the advisory recommendation, triggering a disclosure obligation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Advisory
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the advisory recommendation because Engineer A is qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build, the method recommended. This interest was not disclosed to City B Administrator, who is not a licensed engineer and was relying on Engineer A's advice.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constraint class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to avoid acting in a manner where a personal business interest in securing future work under Progressive-Design-Build conflicted with the duty to provide City B with objective and complete advisory services, and was required to disclose that interest before or at the time of providing the recommendation.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.2 (Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible) and Section II.4
temporal scope: Throughout the advisory engagement with City B Administrator
text references: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)'
matched ontology class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to avoid acting in a manner where a personal business interest in securing future work under Progressive-Design-Build conflicted with the duty to provide City B with objective and complete advisory services, and was required to disclose that interest before or at the time of providing the recommendation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Advisory
type: ConflictofInterestRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Conflict of Interest Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to recognize that being qualified and positioned to provide paid construction services under Progressive-Design-Build created a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed before or alongside any advisory recommendation favoring that method.
case context: Engineer A served as a project delivery advisor to City B while also being qualified to provide construction services under one of the methods being evaluated, creating a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstrated through: Engineer A recommended a project delivery method under which Engineer A could provide subsequent paid services without disclosing this competitive interest to City Administrator.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to recognize that being qualified and positioned to provide paid construction services under Progressive-Design-Build created a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed before or alongside any advisory recommendation favoring that method.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Construction Services
type: ConstructionServicesEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Engineer A is a licensed professional engineer qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods in City B.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
has jurisdiction: State C, City B
has license: Professional Engineer, State C
has specialty: Construction services, Progressive-Design-Build, Construction-Manager-at-Risk
role category: provider_client
role class: Construction Services Engineer
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A is a licensed professional engineer qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods in City B.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Judgment
type: ClientInstructionBoundaryJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A had the capability to recognize that the fiduciary duty to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests required presenting complete and unbiased information, and that structuring the memo to favor a personally beneficial option exceeded the limits of permissible advisory conduct.
case context: Engineer A was acting in a purely advisory capacity for City B with no existing contractual relationship, and the fiduciary duty in that role required prioritizing the client's informational needs over the firm's competitive interests.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.75
demonstrated through: The obligation to place City B's need for complete information above Engineer A's interest in being selected to provide construction services under the recommended delivery method.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability'
matched ontology class: ClientInstructionBoundaryJudgmentCapability
matched ontology label: Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A had the capability to recognize that the fiduciary duty to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests required presenting complete and unbiased information, and that structuring the memo to favor a personally beneficial option exceeded the limits of permissible advisory conduct.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Free Services Conflict
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B but provided advisory services without charge, which in context appears designed to create goodwill and secure future work under the recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constraint class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from providing free engineering advisory services to City B Administrator as a means of positioning the firm to secure future paid work, because doing so constitutes a form of valuable consideration offered to influence a public official and creates a conflict between the engineer's commercial interest and the duty to provide objective advice.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.2 and Section II.5 (Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their, or their associates', academic or professional qualifications)
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A agreed to provide and provided the advisory memo without a contract
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
text references: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)'
matched ontology class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from providing free engineering advisory services to City B Administrator as a means of positioning the firm to secure future paid work, because doing so constitutes a form of valuable consideration offered to influence a public official and creates a conflict between the engineer's commercial interest and the duty to provide objective advice.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Free Services Gift Prohibition
type: FreeServicesSolicitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A provided a free partial advisory memo to City Administrator recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide paid services, effectively using the free service as a vehicle to secure future work.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constraint class: Free Services Solicitation Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from providing free engineering advisory services to City B as a means of positioning for subsequent paid construction services, because such provision constitutes an improper gift or valuable consideration offered to secure future work.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics provision prohibiting gifts or valuable consideration to secure work
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A provided the unsolicited or informally solicited advisory memo to City Administrator
text references: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
text references: the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from providing free engineering advisory services to City B as a means of positioning for subsequent paid construction services, because such provision constitutes an improper gift or valuable consideration offered to secure future work.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Funding Constraint Analysis
type: FundingConstraintAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Funding Constraint Analysis Capability
capability statement: Engineer A had the capability to identify and communicate the constraints imposed by the specific funding source on available delivery methods, including the entity-separation requirement applicable to Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
case context: The funding source approved four delivery methods and imposed an entity-separation requirement on Construction-Manager-at-Risk. Engineer A's memo omitted two approved methods and did not address the entity-separation constraint that would have affected Engineer A's own eligibility under that method.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: Engineer A's engagement with the funding source context and preparation of a delivery method advisory memo, which required knowledge of which methods were approved under the funding source.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source
text references: if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A had the capability to identify and communicate the constraints imposed by the specific funding source on available delivery methods, including the entity-separation requirement applicable to Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Funding Option Accuracy
type: RegulatoryOptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The funding source governing City B's wastewater project approved four delivery methods. Engineer A's memo presented only two, which could have caused City B to select a method without awareness of all compliant alternatives, potentially affecting funding eligibility and procurement strategy.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constraint class: Regulatory Option Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to accurately represent to City B Administrator all four project delivery methods approved under the specific funding source, because the funding agency's regulatory framework defined the permissible option set and Engineer A had no authority to narrow that set in the advisory memo.
severity: high
source: Funding agency regulatory requirements governing approved project delivery methods under the specific funding source
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A prepared the advisory memo for City B Administrator
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to accurately represent to City B Administrator all four project delivery methods approved under the specific funding source, because the funding agency's regulatory framework defined the permissible option set and Engineer A had no authority to narrow that set in the advisory memo.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Gratuitous Services Conflict
type: GratuitousServicesConflictRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Gratuitous Services Conflict Recognition Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to recognize that providing a free advisory memo to City Administrator, in a context where Engineer A stood to benefit from subsequent paid construction services, constituted a prohibited extension of free services as a solicitation vehicle.
case context: City Administrator solicited advice from Engineer A on project delivery methods. It was unclear whether the administrator knowingly sought a donation of services. Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending a method under which Engineer A could provide paid construction services.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstrated through: The BER found that Engineer A's provision of free advisory services combined with a self-serving recommendation was unethical as an extension of free services, regardless of whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services.
text references: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
text references: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to recognize that providing a free advisory memo to City Administrator, in a context where Engineer A stood to benefit from subsequent paid construction services, constituted a prohibited extension of free services as a solicitation vehicle.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Client Communication
type: Non-EngineerClientCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability
capability statement: Engineer A had the capability to recognize that the City Administrator lacked engineering licensure and therefore could not independently evaluate the completeness or objectivity of the advisory memo, creating a heightened duty to ensure the information provided was complete and unbiased.
case context: The City Administrator of City B is not a licensed professional engineer and solicited Engineer A's recommendation precisely because of that knowledge gap. Engineer A's memo omitted two of four approved options without explanation, leaving the Administrator unable to make a fully informed decision.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.79
demonstrated through: The City Administrator's reliance on Engineer A's memo as the basis for a procurement decision, without the technical background to detect that two approved delivery methods had been omitted.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A had the capability to recognize that the City Administrator lacked engineering licensure and therefore could not independently evaluate the completeness or objectivity of the advisory memo, creating a heightened duty to ensure the information provided was complete and unbiased.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Options Completeness
type: OptionsCompletenessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Options Completeness Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A had the capability to identify all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods and to present them completely to City B, but failed to exercise this capability by omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the advisory memo.
case context: Engineer A prepared a summary memo identifying only two of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods, omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the analysis presented to the non-engineer City Administrator.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstrated through: Engineer A's knowledge of the four approved delivery methods under the funding source, as evidenced by the ability to identify Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build, which implies awareness of the full option set.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A had the capability to identify all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods and to present them completely to City B, but failed to exercise this capability by omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the advisory memo.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:39.966147+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Options Completeness Advisory
type: OptionsCompletenessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Options Completeness Assessment Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to identify and present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, and failed to exercise this capability by limiting the memo to a partial comparative evaluation.
case context: Engineer A advised City B on project delivery methods for a wastewater project funded by a specific agency that approved four methodologies. The advisory memo addressed fewer than all four and recommended the method most beneficial to Engineer A.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstrated through: The BER found that Engineer A omitted three of four approved methodologies from the advisory memo, depriving City Administrator of the information needed for an informed decision.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to identify and present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, and failed to exercise this capability by limiting the memo to a partial comparative evaluation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Progressive Design Build Experience Summary
type: EngineerQualificationandExperienceResource
type: NamedIndividual
available to: Engineer A
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
created by: Engineer A
document title: Summary of Firm Experience with Progressive-Design-Build Projects
resource class: Engineer Qualification and Experience Resource
text references: Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
used by: Engineer A
used in context: Submitted by Engineer A alongside the delivery method recommendation to City B, documenting the firm's qualifications and past project references for Progressive-Design-Build work.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:40:56.485170+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.8
match reasoning: Via class 'Engineer Qualification and Experience Resource': This type of qualification and experience documentation fits within the existing Reference Material class as supporting documentation for professional practice. No more specific existing class covers firm experience summaries and project references.
matched ontology class: ReferenceMaterial
matched ontology label: Reference Material
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: createdBy
synthesis literal: documentTitle
synthesis literal: resourceClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: usedInContext
comment: Submitted by Engineer A alongside the delivery method recommendation to City B, documenting the firm's qualifications and past project references for Progressive-Design-Build work.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:40:56.485170+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Referral Alternative Advisory
type: ReferralAlternativeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: City Administrator solicited an analysis of water and wastewater project delivery methodologies. Engineer A provided a partial memo covering only two of four funding-agency-approved methods and recommended the one under which Engineer A was qualified to provide paid services, rather than referring the administrator to complete independent resources.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constraint class: Referral Alternative Constraint
constraint statement: When Engineer A could not provide a complete, unbiased analysis of all four delivery methodologies without incurring a conflict of interest, Engineer A was constrained to either refer City Administrator to independent resources covering all options or decline to provide advisory services, rather than providing a partial self-serving substitute.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 95-5, BER Case 99-8
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A responded to City Administrator's solicitation for advisory services
text references: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: When Engineer A could not provide a complete, unbiased analysis of all four delivery methodologies without incurring a conflict of interest, Engineer A was constrained to either refer City Administrator to independent resources covering all options or decline to provide advisory services, rather than providing a partial self-serving substitute.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Referral Resource Advisory
type: ReferralResourceIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Referral Resource Identification Capability
capability statement: Engineer A had the capability to identify and refer City Administrator to publicly available or subscription resources providing complete analyses of project delivery methodologies, as an ethical alternative to providing a partial, self-serving advisory memo.
case context: Engineer A was asked informally by City Administrator to advise on project delivery methods for a wastewater project. Rather than referring the administrator to neutral complete resources, Engineer A provided a partial memo recommending a method under which Engineer A could provide paid construction services.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstrated through: The case analysis identifies referral to library, free, or subscription resources as a fully ethical response that Engineer A could have chosen but did not.
proficiency level: intermediate
text references: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A had the capability to identify and refer City Administrator to publicly available or subscription resources providing complete analyses of project delivery methodologies, as an ethical alternative to providing a partial, self-serving advisory memo.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Report Completeness Memo
type: ReportCompletenessIntegrityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
possessed by: Engineer A
capability class: Report Completeness Integrity Capability
capability statement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that omitting three of four approved project delivery methodologies from the advisory memo constituted an incomplete and potentially misleading professional product, analogous to the selective omission of contrary evidence condemned in BER 95-5 and 99-8.
case context: Engineer A prepared a summary advisory memo for City B on project delivery methods but included only a partial comparative evaluation with no full analysis and a recommendation favoring the method under which Engineer A could provide paid services.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstrated through: Engineer A's advisory memo presented only one methodology favorably and omitted full analysis of the other three, which the BER found to be incomplete and self-serving in the same manner as prior cases involving selective use of information.
proficiency level: advanced
text references: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
synthesis literal: capabilityClass
synthesis literal: capabilityStatement
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: demonstratedThrough
synthesis literal: proficiencyLevel
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that omitting three of four approved project delivery methodologies from the advisory memo constituted an incomplete and potentially misleading professional product, analogous to the selective omission of contrary evidence condemned in BER 95-5 and 99-8.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:46.347963+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Report Integrity Advisory Memo
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A's advisory memo omitted two of four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods and provided no comparative analysis, presenting only a partial and self-serving evaluation. BER Case 95-5 and 99-8 were cited as precedents for the completeness and integrity obligations applicable to professional reports.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.8
constraint class: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraint statement: Engineer A was constrained to provide an objective and truthful advisory memo that included all relevant and pertinent information about the four approved delivery methodologies, and was prohibited from selectively omitting two methodologies in a manner that rendered the advisory product misleading.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 95-5, BER Case 99-8
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A prepared and submitted the advisory memo to City Administrator
text references: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
text references: include all relevant and pertinent information
text references: objective and truthful
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Non-Deception (Constraint)'
matched ontology class: Non Deception
matched ontology label: Non-Deception (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: objective and truthful
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was constrained to provide an objective and truthful advisory memo that included all relevant and pertinent information about the four approved delivery methodologies, and was prohibited from selectively omitting two methodologies in a manner that rendered the advisory product misleading.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A having no contractual relationship with City B during City Administrator's request for a recommendation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
from entity text: Engineer A having no contractual relationship with City B
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity: Informal Guidance Request
to entity text: City Administrator's request for a recommendation
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: City Administrator s request for a recommendation
interval during: Informal Guidance Request
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A preparing the summary memo (with omissions) before Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
from entity: Advisory Memo Preparation
from entity text: Engineer A preparing the summary memo (with omissions)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Before memo preparation; at the point of initial contact
type: Instant

Following City Administrator's solicitation, before memo submission
type: ProperInterval

After the case was submitted to the BER for review
type: Instant

At time of memo submission
type: Instant

At the point Engineer A's recommendation was made within the memo
type: Instant

Upon delivery of the summary memo to the City Administrator
type: Instant

Upon completion and delivery of the advisory memo
type: ProperInterval

Prior to City Administrator's outreach to Engineer A
type: Instant

Prior to memo preparation, initial solicitation phase
type: Instant

During memo preparation
type: Instant

At time of memo submission, concurrent with recommendation
type: Instant

wastewater system improvements project after City Administrator's request for a recommendation on project delivery methods
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
from entity text: wastewater system improvements project
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity: Informal Guidance Request
to entity text: City Administrator's request for a recommendation on project delivery methods
synthesis literal: allenRelation
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: evidence
synthesis literal: fromEntity
synthesis literal: fromEntityURI
synthesis literal: owlTimeURI
synthesis literal: toEntity
synthesis literal: toEntityURI
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: City Administrator s request for a recommendation
interval after: Informal Guidance Request
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Informal Guidance Request → Advisory Engagement Initiated
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In the present case, City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A.
causal step1: Informal Guidance Request -- City Administrator solicits informal guidance from Engineer A on project delivery methods
causal step2: Advisory Engagement Initiated -- An informal advisory relationship between Engineer A and City B comes into existence
cause: Informal Guidance Request
cause text: Informal Guidance Request
counterfactual: Without the City Administrator's solicitation, no advisory relationship between Engineer A and City B would have come into existence
effect: Advisory Engagement Initiated
effect text: Advisory Engagement Initiated
necessary factors: City Administrator's decision to solicit guidance
necessary factors: Engineer A being a licensed professional engineer providing construction services in the community
necessary factors: Upcoming wastewater system improvements project requiring delivery method selection
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City Administrator
responsible agent text: City Administrator
sufficient factors: City Administrator soliciting a recommendation from Engineer A on project delivery methods
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Advisory Memo Preparation → Free Services Rendered
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A’s benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
causal step1: Advisory Memo Preparation -- Engineer A prepares the summary memo containing an engineering evaluation
causal step2: Free Services Rendered -- Engineer A delivers the advisory memo without a contract or compensation
cause: Advisory Memo Preparation
cause text: Advisory Memo Preparation
counterfactual: Had Engineer A only compiled referenced third-party resources (no engineering services) or charged for the work, no extension of free services would have occurred
effect: Free Services Rendered
effect text: Free Services Rendered
necessary factors: Absence of any contract or compensation
necessary factors: City B's lack of an existing contractual relationship with Engineer A
necessary factors: Engineer A preparing and delivering an engineering evaluation
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Delivery of an engineering evaluation memo without a contract or compensation
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Biased Method Recommendation → Self-Promotional Credential Inclusion
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
causal step1: Biased Method Recommendation -- Engineer A recommends Progressive-Design-Build
causal step2: Self-Promotional Credential Inclusion -- Engineer A attaches a summary of the firm's experience and references
cause: Biased Method Recommendation
cause text: Biased Method Recommendation
counterfactual: Without the recommendation, there would have been no occasion to attach the firm's self-promotional credentials
effect: Self-Promotional Credential Inclusion
effect text: Self-Promotional Credential Inclusion
necessary factors: Engineer A having made the recommendation
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to attach firm experience and references
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Engineer A accompanying the recommendation with the firm's own experience and references
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Advisory Engagement Initiated → Advisory Memo Preparation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
causal step1: Advisory Engagement Initiated -- Informal advisory relationship comes into existence
causal step2: Advisory Memo Preparation -- Engineer A chooses to prepare a formal summary memo responding to the solicitation
cause: Advisory Engagement Initiated
cause text: Advisory Engagement Initiated
counterfactual: Had Engineer A merely referred the City Administrator to outside resources, no advisory memo (and thus no engineering services) would have been prepared
effect: Advisory Memo Preparation
effect text: Advisory Memo Preparation
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to respond formally with a memo rather than referring to resources
necessary factors: Existence of the advisory request
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Engineer A choosing to prepare and deliver a formal summary memo in response to the solicitation
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Free Services Rendered → BER Ethical Finding
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
causal step1: Free Services Rendered -- Engineer A delivers the advisory memo without contract or compensation
causal step2: BER Ethical Finding -- BER finds the extension of free services unethical
cause: Free Services Rendered
cause text: Free Services Rendered
counterfactual: Had no free engineering services been rendered, the second ground of the BER's unethical finding would not exist
effect: BER Ethical Finding
effect text: BER Ethical Finding
necessary factors: BER's analysis of the conduct
necessary factors: NSPE Code prohibition against offering valuable consideration to secure work
necessary factors: Provision of engineering services without contract or compensation
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Extension of free engineering services as a means tied to securing future work, evaluated under the NSPE Code
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Selective Scope Omission → Delivery Options Narrowed
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
causal step1: Funding Approval Established -- Four project delivery methods received funding approval
causal step2: Selective Scope Omission -- Engineer A chooses to present only two of the four viable methods
causal step3: Delivery Options Narrowed -- City B receives a memo presenting only two of the approved options
cause: Selective Scope Omission
cause text: Selective Scope Omission
counterfactual: Had Engineer A presented all four approved methods, City B would not have received a narrowed set of options
effect: Delivery Options Narrowed
effect text: Delivery Options Narrowed
necessary factors: Engineer A's choice to present only two of the four methods
necessary factors: Existence of four funding-approved delivery methods
necessary factors: Omission of Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Engineer A presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Selective Scope Omission → BER Ethical Finding
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A’s benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
causal step1: Selective Scope Omission -- Engineer A presents incomplete, self-serving information
causal step2: Free Services Rendered -- Engineer A extends free engineering services via the memo
causal step3: BER Ethical Finding -- BER concludes the conduct was unethical on two grounds
cause: Selective Scope Omission
cause text: Selective Scope Omission
counterfactual: Had Engineer A provided a complete, objective analysis or merely referred to resources, the BER would not have found the conduct unethical
effect: BER Ethical Finding
effect text: BER Ethical Finding
necessary factors: BER's analysis of Engineer A's conduct
necessary factors: Incomplete/self-serving information in the memo
necessary factors: The extension of free services
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Provision of a partial, self-serving engineering evaluation combined with the extension of free services
within agent control: true
discovered in section: discussion
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Biased Method Recommendation → Conflict of Interest Created
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: When Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build, the method under which Engineer A's own firm s
causal step1: Selective Scope Omission -- Engineer A narrows the viable options to two methods
causal step2: Biased Method Recommendation -- Engineer A recommends Progressive-Design-Build, under which the firm is qualified to provide services
causal step3: Conflict of Interest Created -- A conflict of interest arises because the recommended method benefits Engineer A's own firm
cause: Biased Method Recommendation
cause text: Biased Method Recommendation
counterfactual: Had Engineer A presented a neutral, complete analysis without recommending the self-benefiting method, no conflict of interest would have been created
effect: Conflict of Interest Created
effect text: Conflict of Interest Created
necessary factors: Absence of disclosure of the self-interest
necessary factors: Engineer A recommending the method that benefits the firm
necessary factors: Engineer A's qualification to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
responsible agent text: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Recommending a delivery method under which Engineer A's own firm stands to gain work, within an evaluation that omits alternatives
within agent control: true
discovered in section: facts
synthesis literal: causalLanguage
synthesis literal: causalSequence
synthesis literal: counterfactual
synthesis literal: necessaryFactors
synthesis literal: responsibilityType
synthesis literal: sufficientFactors
synthesis literal: withinAgentControl
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty
type: CompleteOptionsAnalysisPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Advisory evaluation of Progressive-Design-Build, Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and other delivery methodologies for City B
balancing with: Advisory Role Integrity Principle
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A was required to provide a complete analysis of all four project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, but instead provided only a partial comparative evaluation that omitted full analysis and favored the option beneficial to Engineer A.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The complete options analysis obligation required Engineer A to cover all material methodologies with balanced treatment, or to refer City B to neutral resources, rather than providing a self-serving partial analysis.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Complete Options Analysis Principle
tension resolution: The BER found no justification for the partial analysis; Engineer A had clear alternatives including referral to neutral resources or a genuinely complete analysis.
text references: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others, involving no provision of engineering services and thus not unethical.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to provide a complete analysis of all four project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, but instead provided only a partial comparative evaluation that omitted full analysis and favored the option beneficial to Engineer A.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Advisory memo recommending project delivery method to City B
balancing with: Advisory Role Integrity Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build without disclosing that Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services under that delivery method and stood to benefit financially from the recommendation, depriving City B of information needed to assess the objectivity of the advice.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer A to inform City B that the recommended delivery method was one under which Engineer A could provide subsequent paid services before or at the time of making the recommendation.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: Disclosure would not have fully resolved the conflict; the BER analysis implies Engineer A should have either disclosed and withdrawn from the advisory role or provided complete unbiased analysis.
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
text references: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build without disclosing that Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services under that delivery method and stood to benefit financially from the recommendation, depriving City B of information needed to assess the objectivity of the advice.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Competence Advisory
type: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: City B wastewater project delivery method analysis
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A was qualified to evaluate and provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and therefore possessed the competence to analyze all four approved delivery methods, making the omission of two options a matter of choice rather than competence limitation.
confidence: 0.82
interpretation: Professional competence required Engineer A to apply the full scope of relevant expertise to the advisory task. Engineer A's qualifications under two of the four methods meant the firm had direct knowledge relevant to evaluating those methods but chose not to include them in the analysis.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor
principle class: Professional Competence
tension resolution: Engineer A's competence was sufficient to perform a complete analysis. The incomplete analysis was not a competence failure but a choice that raises objectivity and conflict of interest concerns.
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Competence'
matched ontology class: ProfessionalCompetencePrinciple
matched ontology label: Professional Competence
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was qualified to evaluate and provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and therefore possessed the competence to analyze all four approved delivery methods, making the omission of two options a matter of choice rather than competence limitation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Transparency Advisory Memo
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: City B wastewater project advisory relationship
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
balancing with: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A did not disclose to City B the basis for excluding two of the four approved delivery methods from the analysis, nor did Engineer A disclose the firm's interest in providing construction services under the recommended method.
confidence: 0.89
interpretation: Transparency required Engineer A to make visible the scope limitations of the memo and the firm's competitive interest in the recommended outcome, enabling City B to make an informed judgment about the weight to give the recommendation.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Transparency
tension resolution: The transparency obligation was not met. City B, relying on a non-engineer administrator, was not positioned to identify the gaps in the analysis without Engineer A's disclosure.
text references: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Transparency'
matched ontology class: Transparency
matched ontology label: Transparency
matches existing: true
source text: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A did not disclose to City B the basis for excluding two of the four approved delivery methods from the analysis, nor did Engineer A disclose the firm's interest in providing construction services under the recommended method.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Funding Approval Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: City B Regulatory Funding Constraints
causes state change: Four delivery methods, including Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, became formally approved and available options for City B to consider.
concept category: Event
event type: exogenous
initiates text: Four Delivery Methods Approved
initiates text: Full Option Set Available to City B
severity: medium
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Prior to City Administrator's outreach to Engineer A
temporal sequence: 1
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: Four project delivery methods had already received funding approval from the relevant authority before Engineer A was contacted, making all four legally and financially viable options for City B's wastewater project.
has time: Prior to City Administrator's outreach to Engineer A
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

BER Ethical Finding
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
causes state change: Engineer A's conduct was formally characterized as unethical by the BER, establishing an official record of professional misconduct findings against the conduct described in the case.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Formal Unethical Conduct Finding
initiates text: Professional Standards Violation Recorded
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: After the case was submitted to the BER for review
temporal sequence: 11
terminates text: Conduct Under Ethical Review
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: The Board of Ethical Review analyzed Engineer A's conduct and concluded it was unethical on two grounds: providing incomplete and self-serving information, and extending free professional services to secure future work.
has time: After the case was submitted to the BER for review
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Outside Design-Bid-Build Scope
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A Advisory Scope Completeness
activates obligation: Engineer A Funding Constraint Disclosure
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
active period: Throughout the advice and recommendation process
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of objectivity and completeness into a specific obligation to disclose the scope limitations of any analysis provided and to refrain from presenting partial evaluations as comprehensive professional advice.
state class: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer A's qualification status relative to Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build delivery methods
terminated by: Not terminated within the scenario
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
triggering event: Engineer A's lack of qualification to provide construction services under Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Outside Area of Competence'
matched ontology class: OutsideCompetence
matched ontology label: Outside Area of Competence
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's qualification status relative to Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build delivery methods
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Scope Completeness
type: AdvisoryScopeCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: City Administrator requested an analysis of water and wastewater project delivery methodologies. Engineer A's memo addressed only two of four approved methods, omitting Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, which were the two methods under which Engineer A was not qualified to provide services.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constraint class: Advisory Scope Completeness Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was constrained to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo, and was prohibited from selectively presenting only the two methodologies under which Engineer A stood to benefit from subsequent paid work.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 95-5, BER Case 99-8
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A prepared the advisory memo for City Administrator
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
text references: include all relevant and pertinent information
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: include all relevant and pertinent information
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was constrained to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo, and was prohibited from selectively presenting only the two methodologies under which Engineer A stood to benefit from subsequent paid work.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Options Advisory
type: CompleteOptionsAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Selective Option Disclosure
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A prepared a summary memo for City B Administrator advising on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project funded by a specific funding source that approved four delivery methods. Engineer A omitted Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from the memo.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Engineer A Complete Options Analysis
obligation class: Complete Options Advisory Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods to City B in the advisory memo, rather than limiting the analysis to Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build.
temporal scope: At the time of preparing and submitting the advisory memo to City B Administrator
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods to City B in the advisory memo, rather than limiting the analysis to Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosurePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: City B wastewater project delivery method recommendation
balancing with: Loyalty
balancing with: Professional Competence
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services, without disclosing to the non-engineer City Administrator that Engineer A had a direct competitive interest in that recommendation.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: The principle required Engineer A to disclose, before or alongside the recommendation, that Engineer A was qualified and presumably interested in providing construction services under the recommended delivery method, so that City B could weigh the recommendation accordingly.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor
principle class: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
tension resolution: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation was not satisfied. Engineer A provided firm experience and references alongside the recommendation, which functioned as a solicitation rather than a neutral advisory disclosure.
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services, without disclosing to the non-engineer City Administrator that Engineer A had a direct competitive interest in that recommendation.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Honesty Incomplete Memo
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: City B wastewater project summary memo
balancing with: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's summary memo presented an incomplete picture of the available delivery methods, creating a false impression that only two of the four approved options were viable, without disclosing the basis for excluding the other two.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: Honesty required Engineer A to present the full set of approved options and to be transparent about any reasons for limiting the analysis, so that City B could assess whether the recommendation reflected a complete professional evaluation.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Honesty
tension resolution: The honesty obligation was not fully satisfied. The memo's selective presentation, without explanation of the omissions, was misleading to a non-engineer client who lacked the background to identify the gap independently.
text references: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Honesty'
matched ontology class: Honesty
matched ontology label: Honesty
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's summary memo presented an incomplete picture of the available delivery methods, creating a false impression that only two of the four approved options were viable, without disclosing the basis for excluding the other two.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Objectivity Advisory
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: City B wastewater project delivery method recommendation
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
balancing with: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services.
confidence: 0.91
interpretation: Objectivity required Engineer A to provide an impartial comparative analysis of all approved options, free from the influence of Engineer A's own competitive interest in the outcome.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Objectivity
tension resolution: The objectivity obligation was not met. The recommendation reflected Engineer A's competitive interest rather than an impartial professional assessment of what delivery method best served City B's needs.
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Objectivity'
matched ontology class: Objectivity
matched ontology label: Objectivity
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Promotion in Advisory
type: Self-PromotionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build and simultaneously provided a summary of the firm's experience and references for that delivery method, without disclosing that Engineer A stood to benefit from the recommendation and without presenting comparable information for other approved methods.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constraint class: Self-Promotion Advisory Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from submitting a firm qualifications summary and project references alongside an advisory recommendation that steered City B toward the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide services, because doing so converted the advisory engagement into a self-promotional solicitation without disclosure of the conflict.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.5 (Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their, or their associates', academic or professional qualifications) and Section II.4 (Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption)
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A submitted the advisory memo and accompanying qualifications summary to City B Administrator
text references: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Self-Promotion Advisory Constraint': The conduct maps to Conflict of Interest Avoidance because the engineer is using an advisory role to advance personal business interests. However, the specific prohibition on embedding self-promotional materials within an advisory product is a variant not fully captured by the existing class. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
matched ontology class: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
matches existing: true
source text: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from submitting a firm qualifications summary and project references alongside an advisory recommendation that steered City B toward the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide services, because doing so converted the advisory engagement into a self-promotional solicitation without disclosure of the conflict.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Self-Promotional Credential Inclusion
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed professional engineer, State C
foreseen unintended effects: Blurring of the boundary between objective professional advice and solicitation
foreseen unintended effects: Reinforcement of the prohibited inducement through free services
guided by principle: Engineer A Honesty Incomplete Memo
guided by principle: Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation
guided by principle text: Avoidance of Deceptive Conduct
guided by principle text: Professional Integrity
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Advisory Role Converted to Solicitation
initiates text: Prohibited Inducement State
intended outcome: Leverage the advisory role to promote the firm's qualifications and improve the likelihood of being selected for the wastewater project
requires capability text: Conflict of interest management
requires capability text: Distinction between advisory services and business solicitation
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At time of memo submission, concurrent with recommendation
temporal sequence: 7
violates obligation: Engineer A Gratuitous Services Advisory
violates obligation text: Objectivity and Truthfulness
violates obligation text: Prohibition on Free Services to Secure Work
violates obligation text: Prohibition on Gifts or Valuable Consideration to Secure Work
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A chose to accompany the delivery method recommendation with a summary of the firm's own experience on Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects, converting the advisory memo into a marketing document.
has time: At time of memo submission, concurrent with recommendation
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Complete Options Analysis
type: CompleteOptionsAnalysisPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: City B wastewater project delivery method selection
balancing with: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A omitted two of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods, Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, from the summary memo, presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options.
confidence: 0.92
interpretation: The principle required Engineer A to analyze all four approved delivery methods and to disclose and justify any exclusion. The omission of Construction-Manager-at-Risk is particularly significant because Engineer A is also qualified to provide services under that method, and its exclusion cannot be explained by Engineer A's own competence limitations.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Complete Options Analysis Principle
tension resolution: The complete options analysis obligation was not satisfied. The selective presentation of options shaped City B's decision space in a manner that favored the option under which Engineer A could provide services.
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A omitted two of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods, Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, from the summary memo, presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension
type: GratuitousServicesProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Free summary memo provided to City B Municipal Client
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide subsequent paid construction services, thereby extending free services as valuable consideration to secure future work.
confidence: 0.88
interpretation: The NSPE Code prohibition on offering valuable consideration to secure work applies to the extension of free professional services that are structured to benefit the engineer's subsequent engagement prospects.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Gratuitous Services Prohibition Principle
tension resolution: The BER found both the incompleteness and the extension of free services independently unethical, with no countervailing principle justifying either conduct.
text references: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
text references: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
text references: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide subsequent paid construction services, thereby extending free services as valuable consideration to secure future work.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Objectivity Failure Advisory
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Advisory recommendation to City B on project delivery method selection
balancing with: Advisory Role Integrity Principle
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A failed to provide an objective analysis of project delivery methodologies by recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent employment without disclosing that interest or providing balanced analysis.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: Objectivity required Engineer A to present all relevant methodologies without bias toward the option that would generate subsequent work for Engineer A.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Objectivity
tension resolution: The BER found that self-serving partial analysis violated the objectivity obligation; no competing interest justified the departure from objective analysis.
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
text references: objective and truthful
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Objectivity'
matched ontology class: Objectivity
matched ontology label: Objectivity
matches existing: true
source text: objective and truthful
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A failed to provide an objective analysis of project delivery methodologies by recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent employment without disclosing that interest or providing balanced analysis.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Qualified Delivery Methods
type: QualifiedtoPerform
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
active period: Throughout the advice and recommendation process
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
state class: Qualified to Perform
subject: Engineer A's competence relative to available project delivery methods
terminated by: Not terminated within the scenario
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
triggering event: Engineer A's existing qualifications to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk
urgency level: low
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Qualified to Perform'
matched ontology class: QualifiedToPerform
matched ontology label: Qualified to Perform
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's competence relative to available project delivery methods
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Report Completeness Violation
type: ReportCompletenessPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Summary memo on project delivery methods for City B wastewater project
balancing with: Advisory Role Integrity Principle
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A provided a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies that omitted full analysis of all four methodologies and excluded information unfavorable to the recommended option, mirroring the selective omission condemned in BER 95-5 and 99-8.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: The completeness obligation required Engineer A to either provide a full analysis of all four methodologies with pros and cons or to refer City B to neutral resources, not to submit a partial analysis that served Engineer A's interest in subsequent work.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Report Completeness Principle
tension resolution: No legitimate competing principle justified the omission; the BER found the incomplete submission unethical without qualification.
text references: Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
text references: the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information)
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A provided a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies that omitted full analysis of all four methodologies and excluded information unfavorable to the recommended option, mirroring the selective omission condemned in BER 95-5 and 99-8.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Free Services Rendered
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Free Services Extension
caused by action: Advisory Memo Preparation
causes state change: Engineer A's professional services were consumed by City B without compensation, placing Engineer A's conduct within the category of free service provision that NSPE Code provisions address.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Free Services as Competitive Advantage
initiates text: Uncompensated Professional Services Provided
severity: medium
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Upon completion and delivery of the advisory memo
temporal sequence: 10
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: By preparing and delivering the advisory memo without a contract or compensation, Engineer A provided professional services for free to City B, an occurrence that the BER later identified as equivalent to providing free services to secure future work.
has time: Upon completion and delivery of the advisory memo
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Funding Constraint Disclosure
type: FundingConstraintDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: City B sought advice on delivery methods under a specific funding source that imposed constraints on how certain methods could be structured. Engineer A's memo omitted two of the four approved methods and did not address the funding agency's entity-separation requirement for Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
obligation class: Funding Constraint Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator all constraints imposed by the specific funding source on the available delivery methods, including the requirement that if Construction-Manager-at-Risk is selected, the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities.
temporal scope: At the time of preparing and submitting the advisory memo to City B Administrator
text references: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator all constraints imposed by the specific funding source on the available delivery methods, including the requirement that if Construction-Manager-at-Risk is selected, the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Report Completeness Advisory Memo
type: ReportCompletenessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Partial Methodology Analysis
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A provided a summary memo to City B recommending Progressive-Design-Build while omitting two of the four approved delivery methods from the analysis, in a context where Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services under the recommended method.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Engineer A Report Completeness Violation
obligation class: Report Completeness Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to include all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo provided to City B, and to refrain from presenting a partial analysis that omitted Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
temporal scope: At the time of preparing and submitting the advisory memo to City Administrator
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
text references: include all relevant and pertinent information
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:47:48.914349+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: include all relevant and pertinent information
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to include all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo provided to City B, and to refrain from presenting a partial analysis that omitted Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:47:48.914349+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation
type: Truthfulness
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Summary memo submitted to City B
balancing with: Report Completeness Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's obligation to be truthful required that the advisory memo accurately represent the state of analysis, including its incompleteness, and not present a partial evaluation as though it were a complete professional assessment.
confidence: 0.85
interpretation: Truthfulness in professional communications extends beyond avoiding false statements to include disclosure of material omissions that would mislead the recipient about the completeness or basis of the professional opinion.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Truthfulness
tension resolution: Truthfulness and completeness reinforce each other here; both were violated by the same conduct of submitting a partial analysis without disclosure.
text references: Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission
text references: include all relevant and pertinent information
text references: objective and truthful
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Truthfulness'
matched ontology class: Truthfulness
matched ontology label: Truthfulness
matches existing: true
source text: objective and truthful
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's obligation to be truthful required that the advisory memo accurately represent the state of analysis, including its incompleteness, and not present a partial evaluation as though it were a complete professional assessment.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity Breach
type: AdvisoryRoleIntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: Advisory recommendation to City B Municipal Client on project delivery method
balancing with: Complete Options Analysis Principle
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A's advisory role required independence from personal interest, but Engineer A allowed the prospect of subsequent construction services work to shape the scope and content of the advisory memo, recommending the delivery method most favorable to Engineer A's own engagement.
confidence: 0.9
interpretation: An engineer serving in a purely advisory capacity must not allow interest in obtaining subsequent work to shape the advice given; doing so corrupts the advisory relationship and deprives the client of the independent judgment they sought.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
principle class: Advisory Role Integrity Principle
tension resolution: The BER found that the self-serving recommendation violated the advisory role; Engineer A should have either disclosed the interest and recused from the advisory role or provided genuinely independent analysis.
text references: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services.
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A's advisory role required independence from personal interest, but Engineer A allowed the prospect of subsequent construction services work to shape the scope and content of the advisory memo, recommending the delivery method most favorable to Engineer A's own engagement.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:46:54.906706+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City Administrator Non-Engineer Advisory Context
type: InformationState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
affects: City Administrator
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
active period: Throughout the advisory interaction
affected parties: City Administrator
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
state class: Information State
subject: City Administrator's lack of professional engineering licensure and resulting reliance on Engineer A's advice
terminated by: City Administrator obtains independent qualified advice or gains sufficient information to evaluate options independently
text references: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
triggering event: City Administrator, not a licensed professional engineer, sought technical advice on project delivery methods from Engineer A
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Information State'
matched ontology class: InformationState
matched ontology label: Information State
matches existing: true
source text: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: City Administrator's lack of professional engineering licensure and resulting reliance on Engineer A's advice
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Delivery Options Narrowed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Partial Methodology Analysis
initiates: Engineer A Selective Option Disclosure
terminates: Engineer A Partial Methodology Analysis
terminates: Engineer A Selective Option Disclosure
caused by action: Selective Scope Omission
causes state change: City B's awareness of available delivery options was artificially limited to two methods rather than the four that had received funding approval.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Decision Scope Artificially Reduced
initiates text: Incomplete Information Held by Client
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Upon delivery of the summary memo to the City Administrator
temporal sequence: 9
terminates text: Full Option Set Available to City B
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: As a result of Engineer A's selective omission, City B received a memo that presented only two of the four funding-approved delivery methods, meaning Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build were effectively removed from the city's decision-making process.
has time: Upon delivery of the summary memo to the City Administrator
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Gratuitous Services Advisory
type: GratuitousServicesSolicitationProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Free Services Extension
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A provided a complimentary summary memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services, without charge to City B, in circumstances where the free service functioned as valuable consideration to secure subsequent work.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension
obligation class: Gratuitous Services Solicitation Prohibition Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing free advisory engineering services to City B as a vehicle to position for subsequent paid construction services under the recommended delivery method.
temporal scope: At the time of providing the unsolicited or informally solicited free advisory memo
text references: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
text references: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:47:48.914349+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing free advisory engineering services to City B as a vehicle to position for subsequent paid construction services under the recommended delivery method.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:47:48.914349+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Advisory Engagement Initiated
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: City Administrator Non-Engineer Advisory Context
initiates: Engineer A No Contract With City B
terminates: Engineer A No Contract With City B
caused by action: Informal Guidance Request
causes state change: Engineer A transitioned from having no relationship with City B to occupying an informal advisory role for the city on a public infrastructure matter.
concept category: Event
event type: outcome
initiates text: Engineer A Advising Public Client
initiates text: Informal Advisory Relationship Active
severity: medium
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Before memo preparation; at the point of initial contact
temporal sequence: 3
terminates text: No Contractual Relationship with City B
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: An informal advisory relationship between Engineer A and City B came into existence when the City Administrator approached Engineer A for guidance, despite no prior contractual relationship existing between the two parties.
has time: Before memo preparation; at the point of initial contact
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City B Regulatory Funding Constraints
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Funding Approval Established
activates constraint: Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Delivery Options Narrowed
active period: Throughout the project planning and delivery method selection process
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Funding Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
state class: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: City B's obligation to select a project delivery method from the four approved under the specific funding source
terminated by: Project delivery method selected and funding agency requirements satisfied
text references: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods
text references: if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities
triggering event: City B's use of a specific funding source that restricts approved project delivery methods and imposes additional requirements such as separation of Construction Manager at Risk and Engineer of Record
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Compliance State'
matched ontology class: RegulatoryCompliance
matched ontology label: Regulatory Compliance State
matches existing: true
source text: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: City B's obligation to select a project delivery method from the four approved under the specific funding source
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity
type: AdvisoryRoleIntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
invoked by: Engineer A
applied to: City B wastewater project advisory engagement
balancing with: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
balancing with: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concrete expression: Engineer A was engaged in a purely advisory capacity with no existing contractual relationship with City B, but used the advisory memo to simultaneously recommend a delivery method and market the firm's qualifications under that method, blending advisory and business-development functions without disclosure.
confidence: 0.87
interpretation: The principle required Engineer A to either maintain clear separation between the advisory recommendation and any interest in follow-on work, or to disclose explicitly that the recommendation was not independent of Engineer A's business interest in the project.
invoked by: Engineer A Delivery Advisor
principle class: Advisory Role Integrity Principle
tension resolution: The advisory role integrity obligation was not satisfied. The inclusion of firm experience summaries and project references within the advisory memo converted the advisory document into a hybrid advisory-solicitation without disclosing that dual character to the non-engineer client.
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
text references: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
synthesis literal: appliedTo
synthesis literal: balancingWith
synthesis literal: concreteExpression
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: interpretation
synthesis literal: principleClass
synthesis literal: tensionResolution
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was engaged in a purely advisory capacity with no existing contractual relationship with City B, but used the advisory memo to simultaneously recommend a delivery method and market the firm's qualifications under that method, blending advisory and business-development functions without disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A No Contract With City B
type: RelationshipState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Advisory Engagement Initiated
activates constraint: Engineer A Advisory Scope Completeness
activates obligation: Engineer A Funding Constraint Disclosure
affects: City Administrator
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
active period: At the time City Administrator requests the recommendation and throughout the advice-giving interaction
affected parties: City Administrator
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of objectivity and completeness into a specific obligation to disclose the scope limitations of any analysis provided and to refrain from presenting partial evaluations as comprehensive professional advice.
state class: Relationship State
subject: Engineer A's relationship with City B
terminated by: Formation of a contractual relationship, if any
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation
text references: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
triggering event: City Administrator's request for a recommendation in the absence of any existing contractual engagement
urgency level: low
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Relationship State'
matched ontology class: RelationshipState
matched ontology label: Relationship State
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's relationship with City B
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Informal Guidance Request
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: non-licensed public official, City B
foreseen unintended effects: Potential reliance on a non-neutral source with business interests in the outcome
guided by principle text: Responsiveness to Public Need
has agent: City Administrator
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Informal Advisory Relationship
initiates text: Unsolicited Conflict of Interest Exposure
intended outcome: Obtain practical guidance on viable delivery methods for the upcoming wastewater system improvements project
requires capability text: Knowledge of neutral procurement resources
requires capability text: Recognition of conflict of interest in solicitation
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: Prior to memo preparation, initial solicitation phase
temporal sequence: 2
within competence: false
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: City Administrator chose to solicit informal guidance on project delivery methods from Engineer A, a local provider with no current contract with City B, rather than consulting independent resources or a neutral party.
has time: Prior to memo preparation, initial solicitation phase
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Delivery Advisor
type: ProjectDeliveryAdvisor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity
adheres to principle: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure
adheres to principle: Engineer A Professional Competence Advisory
has obligation: Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Advisory Role Objectivity
has obligation: Engineer A Complete Options Advisory
has obligation: Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
has obligation: Engineer A Funding Constraint Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Gratuitous Services Advisory
has obligation: Engineer A Report Completeness Advisory Memo
has obligation: Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Engineer A was asked to advise City B on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project, prepared a summary memo, and recommended Progressive-Design-Build while omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a viable option despite being qualified to provide services under it.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
has license: Professional Engineer, State C
other attribute: conflict_of_interest: Qualified and presumably interested in providing services under Progressive-Design-Build
other attribute: omission: Did not identify Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a viable option in the memo
role category: provider_client
role class: Project Delivery Advisor
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was asked to advise City B on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project, prepared a summary memo, and recommended Progressive-Design-Build while omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a viable option despite being qualified to provide services under it.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:03.751066+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete
type: ProjectDeliveryAdvisor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity Breach
adheres to principle: Engineer A Complete Options Analysis
adheres to principle: Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty
adheres to principle: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure
adheres to principle: Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension
adheres to principle: Engineer A Honesty Incomplete Memo
adheres to principle: Engineer A Objectivity Advisory
adheres to principle: Engineer A Objectivity Failure Advisory
adheres to principle: Engineer A Report Completeness Violation
adheres to principle: Engineer A Transparency Advisory Memo
adheres to principle: Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation
actor: Engineer A
case involvement: Engineer A provided a partial, comparative engineering evaluation of project delivery methodologies with no full analysis and a recommendation that served Engineer A's own interest, omitting relevant information and extending free services, both of which the BER found unethical.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
has license: Professional Engineer
other attribute: obligation_violated: Objectivity, completeness, avoidance of self-interest
role category: provider_client
role class: Project Delivery Advisor
text references: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
text references: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:28.576171+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
synthesis literal: caseInvolvement
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: roleCategory
synthesis literal: roleClass
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A provided a partial, comparative engineering evaluation of project delivery methodologies with no full analysis and a recommendation that served Engineer A's own interest, omitting relevant information and extending free services, both of which the BER found unethical.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:28.576171+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Interested Recommendation
type: Self-InterestedRecommendationState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Conflict of Interest Created
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion in Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Role Objectivity
activates obligation: Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
affects: City Administrator
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Conflict of Interest Created
active period: From the submission of the recommendation memo onward
affected parties: City Administrator
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
principle transformation: Transforms the general conflict-of-interest principle into a concrete obligation to disclose business interest in a recommended project delivery method and to ensure the recommendation is grounded in the client's needs rather than the professional's commercial advantage.
state class: Self-Interested Recommendation State
subject: Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build, a method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide services
terminated by: Disclosure of Engineer A's business interest in the recommended method, or withdrawal of the recommendation
text references: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
triggering event: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build and provided firm experience summaries and references, while being qualified to provide services under that method and having omitted other options
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Self-Interested Recommendation State': Conflict of Interest State captures the general condition of competing personal and professional interests. This new class is a more specific variant focused on the act of making a recommendation while holding an undisclosed business interest in the recommended option, which adds the disclosure and advice-objectivity dimensions not fully expressed by the general class.
matched ontology class: ConflictOfInterest
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest State
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build, a method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide services
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Selective Scope Omission
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Partial Methodology Analysis
initiates: Engineer A Selective Option Disclosure
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed professional engineer, State C
foreseen unintended effects: Deprivation of complete information needed for an informed owner decision
foreseen unintended effects: Violation of completeness obligations
guided by principle: Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity
guided by principle: Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity Breach
guided by principle text: Faithful Agency to Client
guided by principle text: Professional Integrity
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Incomplete Information State
initiates text: Owner Decision Bias State
intended outcome: Narrow the City Administrator's consideration to delivery methods favorable to Engineer A's firm
requires capability text: Knowledge of all four funding-approved delivery methods
requires capability text: Objective comparative analysis
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: During memo preparation
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation: Engineer A Report Completeness Advisory Memo
violates obligation text: Completeness of Information
violates obligation text: Inclusion of All Relevant and Pertinent Information
violates obligation text: Objectivity and Truthfulness
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A chose to present only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options in the memo, omitting Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, both of which were approved under the proposed funding source and both of which were less advantageous to Engineer A's business interests.
has time: During memo preparation
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Biased Method Recommendation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Undisclosed
initiates: Engineer A Self-Interested Recommendation
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed professional engineer, State C
foreseen unintended effects: Compromised objectivity of the advisory role
foreseen unintended effects: Potential harm to public interest through suboptimal project delivery selection
guided by principle: Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity
guided by principle: Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation
guided by principle text: Professional Integrity
guided by principle text: Public Welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Conflict of Interest Active
initiates text: Self-Serving Recommendation State
intended outcome: Steer City B toward selecting the delivery method most beneficial to Engineer A's firm
requires capability text: Conflict of interest disclosure
requires capability text: Objective evaluation of project delivery methods
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At time of memo submission
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Role Objectivity
violates obligation: Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
violates obligation text: Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest
violates obligation text: Faithful Agency to Client
violates obligation text: Objectivity and Truthfulness
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A chose to recommend Progressive-Design-Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A's firm could directly compete for and win the construction contract, without providing a balanced or objective comparative analysis of all approved methods.
has time: At time of memo submission
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Created
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Undisclosed
terminates: Engineer A Free Services Extension
caused by action: Biased Method Recommendation
causes state change: Engineer A's advisory role became compromised by an undisclosed personal financial interest in the recommended outcome.
concept category: Event
event type: automatic_trigger
initiates text: Compromised Advisory Integrity
initiates text: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest
severity: high
temporal extent: instant
temporal marker: At the point Engineer A's recommendation was made within the memo
temporal sequence: 8
terminates text: Disinterested Advisory Relationship
synthesis literal: causesStateChange
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventType
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
comment: When Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build, the method under which Engineer A's own firm stood to benefit directly, a conflict of interest came into existence between Engineer A's professional duty to provide objective advice and Engineer A's firm's financial interest in the outcome.
has time: At the point Engineer A's recommendation was made within the memo
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
type: RegulatoryOptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: The funding agency imposed a specific structural requirement on Construction-Manager-at-Risk: the CM firm and Engineer of Record must be distinct entities. Engineer A omitted this method from the memo entirely rather than presenting it with its regulatory conditions, depriving City B of the ability to evaluate it.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constraint class: Regulatory Option Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was required to disclose to City B Administrator the funding agency's requirement that under Construction-Manager-at-Risk, the CM firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities, rather than omitting that method from the advisory memo entirely, so that City B could evaluate the method with full knowledge of its regulatory conditions.
severity: medium
source: Funding agency regulatory requirements governing Construction-Manager-at-Risk under the specific funding source
temporal scope: At the time Engineer A prepared the advisory memo for City B Administrator
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
text references: if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was required to disclose to City B Administrator the funding agency's requirement that under Construction-Manager-at-Risk, the CM firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities, rather than omitting that method from the advisory memo entirely, so that City B could evaluate the method with full knowledge of its regulatory conditions.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:45:47.831992+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Promotion Advisory
type: Self-PromotionAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
constrained entity: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build and attached a summary of Engineer A's firm's qualifications and past project references for that delivery method, effectively using the advisory product as a marketing vehicle.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constraint class: Self-Promotion Advisory Constraint
constraint statement: Engineer A was prohibited from using the advisory engagement with City Administrator as a vehicle to promote Engineer A's own qualifications and services by structuring the memo to recommend the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide paid construction services.
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest and objectivity provisions
temporal scope: Throughout the advisory engagement with City B
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
text references: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: constraintClass
synthesis literal: constraintStatement
synthesis literal: severity
synthesis literal: source
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was prohibited from using the advisory engagement with City Administrator as a vehicle to promote Engineer A's own qualifications and services by structuring the memo to recommend the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide paid construction services.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:48:44.763664+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Undisclosed
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activated by event: Conflict of Interest Created
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion in Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Role Objectivity
activates obligation: Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
affects: City Administrator
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
terminated by event: Conflict of Interest Created
active period: From the moment Engineer A began preparing the recommendation through any disclosure or correction
affected parties: City Administrator
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
principle transformation: Transforms the general conflict-of-interest principle into a concrete obligation to disclose business interest in a recommended project delivery method and to ensure the recommendation is grounded in the client's needs rather than the professional's commercial advantage.
state class: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's personal business interest in the recommended project delivery method conflicting with the duty to provide objective advice to City B
terminated by: Disclosure of conflict to City B Administrator, or recusal from the advisory role
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
text references: Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
triggering event: Engineer A, qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build, recommended that method to a client without disclosing the business interest
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Conflict of Interest State'
matched ontology class: ConflictOfInterest
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest State
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's personal business interest in the recommended project delivery method conflicting with the duty to provide objective advice to City B
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Free Services Extension
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
affects: City Administrator
affects: Engineer A
active period: From the point Engineer A provided the free partial analysis through the BER's determination
affected parties: City Administrator
affected parties: Engineer A
affected parties: Other engineers who might have competed for the work
concept category: State
confidence: 0.83
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
state class: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's provision of free engineering services to City Administrator as a means of securing future work
terminated by: Not specified
text references: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
text references: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
text references: the extension of free services
triggering event: Engineer A provided free engineering services in the form of a partial comparative evaluation, creating a situation where the provision of services functioned as a form of consideration to secure future work
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:42:02.559155+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Conflict of Interest State'
matched ontology class: ConflictOfInterest
matched ontology label: Conflict of Interest State
matches existing: true
source text: the extension of free services
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's provision of free engineering services to City Administrator as a means of securing future work
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:42:02.559155+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Partial Methodology Analysis
type: SelectiveOptionDisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
affects: City Administrator
affects: Engineer A
active period: From Engineer A's provision of the partial comparative evaluation through the BER's ethical determination
affected parties: City Administrator
affected parties: City as client entity
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
state class: Selective Option Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A's response to City Administrator's solicitation for analysis of water/wastewater methodologies
terminated by: Not specified; the ethical violation was identified by the BER
text references: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
text references: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
triggering event: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A, who responded with a partial comparative engineering evaluation covering only some methodologies, with no full analysis, and a recommendation favoring Engineer A's own interests
urgency level: medium
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:42:02.559155+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's response to City Administrator's solicitation for analysis of water/wastewater methodologies
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:42:02.559155+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Advisory Memo Preparation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
initiates: Engineer A Free Services Extension
concept category: Action
event role context: licensed professional engineer, State C
foreseen unintended effects: Provision of free engineering services that could constitute an inducement to secure future work
guided by principle text: Professional Integrity
guided by principle text: Public Welfare
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
initiates text: Free Advisory Services Rendered
initiates text: Potential Inducement State
intended outcome: Respond to the City Administrator's request and position the firm for future work on the wastewater project
raises obligation: Engineer A Advisory Role Objectivity
raises obligation text: Objectivity and Truthfulness
requires capability text: Conflict of interest recognition
requires capability text: Knowledge of project delivery methods
requires capability text: Technical writing
temporal extent: interval
temporal marker: Following City Administrator's solicitation, before memo submission
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation: Engineer A Gratuitous Services Advisory
violates obligation text: Prohibition on Free Services to Secure Work
within competence: true
synthesis literal: description
synthesis literal: eventRoleContext
synthesis literal: foreseenUnintendedEffects
synthesis literal: hasAgent
synthesis literal: hasMentalState
synthesis literal: intendedOutcome
synthesis literal: temporalExtent
synthesis literal: temporalMarker
synthesis literal: temporalSequence
synthesis literal: withinCompetence
comment: Engineer A chose to prepare a formal summary memo responding to the City Administrator's informal solicitation rather than referring the City Administrator to neutral resources, declining to provide advisory services without a contract, or compiling a complete analysis from properly referenced third-party sources.
has time: Following City Administrator's solicitation, before memo submission
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Option Disclosure
type: SelectiveOptionDisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
activates constraint: Engineer A Self-Promotion Advisory
activates obligation: Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
activates obligation: Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
affects: City Administrator
affects: City B
affects: Engineer A
active period: From submission of the summary memo through any correction or supplementation
affected parties: City Administrator
affected parties: City B
affected parties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
principle transformation: Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
state class: Selective Option Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A's memo to City B Administrator omitting two of four approved delivery methods
terminated by: Full disclosure of all four approved options to City B Administrator
text references: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
triggering event: Engineer A prepared and submitted a memo identifying only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options, omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build
urgency level: high
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 1
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
synthesis literal: activePeriod
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: stateClass
synthesis literal: subject
synthesis literal: terminatedBy
synthesis literal: textReferences
synthesis literal: triggeringEvent
synthesis literal: urgencyLevel
comment: Engineer A's memo to City B Administrator omitting two of four approved delivery methods
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:41:16.710298+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Conflict Disclosure
type: AdvisoryConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A, who provides construction services in City B and is qualified to deliver services under Progressive-Design-Build, recommended Progressive-Design-Build to City B without disclosing that financial interest. Engineer A also included promotional materials about the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build in the same memo.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
derived from principle: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure
obligation class: Advisory Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator that Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build, and therefore has a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation, before or concurrent with issuing the advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build.
temporal scope: At the time of preparing and submitting the advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build
text references: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.75
match reasoning: Via class 'Advisory Conflict Disclosure Obligation': This is a specialization of the existing Disclosure Obligation, focused specifically on conflict-of-interest disclosure in an advisory role where the engineer stands to benefit from the recommended option. The existing Disclosure Obligation is the closest match but does not encode the advisory-role and self-interest-in-recommendation specifics. Medium confidence match to parent.
matched ontology class: DisclosureObligation
matched ontology label: Disclosure Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator that Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build, and therefore has a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation, before or concurrent with issuing the advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Role Objectivity
type: AdvisoryRoleObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
defeasible under: Engineer A Conflict of Interest Undisclosed
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B and was asked to advise on project delivery methods. Engineer A recommended the delivery method under which the firm is qualified to provide construction services and included promotional firm experience and references in the advisory memo.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Engineer A Objectivity Advisory
obligation class: Advisory Role Objectivity Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to provide City B with an objective, unbiased analysis of all available project delivery methods and to refrain from using the advisory memo as a vehicle to promote the firm's own construction services under the recommended delivery method.
temporal scope: Throughout the preparation and submission of the advisory memo
text references: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.0
matches existing: false
source text: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to provide City B with an objective, unbiased analysis of all available project delivery methods and to refrain from using the advisory memo as a vehicle to promote the firm's own construction services under the recommended delivery method.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
type: Self-ServingAdvisoryAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Advisory Role Objectivity
defeasible under: Engineer A Self-Interested Recommendation
obligated party: Engineer A
case context: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services, while omitting analysis of two other approved methods, in a purely advisory capacity with no existing contractual relationship with City B.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Engineer A Objectivity Failure Advisory
obligation class: Self-Serving Advisory Avoidance Obligation
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to structure the advisory memo to serve City B's interests by objectively analyzing all available delivery options, rather than recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent commercial engagement.
temporal scope: Throughout the preparation and delivery of the advisory memo
text references: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
text references: objective and truthful
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: discussion
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:47:48.914349+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.72
match reasoning: Via class 'Self-Serving Advisory Avoidance Obligation': The Advisory Role Objectivity Obligation extracted in prior sections is the closest existing extracted class, but it is listed under previously extracted classes rather than the canonical ontology. Among the canonical ontology classes, Disclosure Obligation is the closest parent because the self-serving advisory avoidance duty is partly grounded in the requirement to inform stakeholders about conflicts and limitations. However, this class is a distinct specialization emphasizing the prohibition on structuring advisory content to serve the engineer's own interests, which goes beyond mere disclosure. Matched as a variant with medium confidence.
matched ontology class: DisclosureObligation
matched ontology label: Disclosure Obligation
matches existing: true
source text: objective and truthful
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to structure the advisory memo to serve City B's interests by objectively analyzing all available delivery options, rather than recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent commercial engagement.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:47:48.914349+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Fiduciary Advisory Duty
type: FiduciaryDuty
type: NamedIndividual
obligated party: Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
case context: Engineer A was asked by City B's non-engineer City Administrator to provide professional advisory services on project delivery methods. Engineer A's recommendation favored the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide construction services, and the memo included promotional content about the firm.
compliance status: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity
obligation class: Fiduciary Duty
obligation statement: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests when providing advisory services, placing City B's need for complete and unbiased information above Engineer A's own commercial interest in being engaged for construction services under the recommended delivery method.
temporal scope: Throughout the advisory engagement with City B
text references: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
text references: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
discovered in case: 14
discovered in pass: 2
discovered in section: facts
first discovered at: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
first discovered in case: 14
match confidence: 0.95
match reasoning: Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Fiduciary Duty'
matched ontology class: Fiduciary Duty
matched ontology label: Fiduciary Duty
matches existing: true
source text: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
synthesis literal: caseContext
synthesis literal: complianceStatus
synthesis literal: confidence
synthesis literal: obligationClass
synthesis literal: obligationStatement
synthesis literal: temporalScope
synthesis literal: textReferences
comment: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests when providing advisory services, placing City B's need for complete and unbiased information above Engineer A's own commercial interest in being engaged for construction services under the recommended delivery method.
generated at time: 2026-06-04T08:44:38.157284+00:00
was attributed to: Case 14 Extraction
was attributed to: claude-sonnet-4-6
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City Administrator
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: City Administrator Non-Engineer
has role: City Administrator Non-Engineer Client

City B
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has role: City B Municipal Client

Engineer A
type: Agent
type: NamedIndividual
has client: City Administrator
has client: City B
has role: Engineer A Construction Services
has role: Engineer A Delivery Advisor
has role: Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete