ProEthica Case 142 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.689506
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Additional Testing Rejected
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Conscience_Clause
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
activates constraint: Whistleblower_Consideration_Constraint
causes state change: Internal resolution pathway closed; Engineer A's professional integrity placed in direct conflict with employer's business decision; the ethical calculus shifts toward external action or resignation
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Consider_External_Reporting_Channels
creates obligation: Document_Rejection_Of_Safety_Recommendation
creates obligation: Reassess_Continued_Employment
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Shortly after Engineer A's recommendation (pre-resignation)
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: high
comment: Company X formally rejects Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing, citing cost and schedule delay concerns. This institutional decision leaves the safety inconsistency unresolved and Engineer A's professional concern unaddressed.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Additional Testing Rejected (Event 2) → Resign From Company X (Action 3) → Engineer A Departs Company (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: At an unspecified point after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, Engineer A made the decision to resign from Company X
cause: Additional Testing Rejected (Event 2)
counterfactual: Had Company X accepted the recommendation or offered a compromise safety review, Engineer A may not have resigned; the rejection was the precipitating condition for the departure
effect: Resign From Company X (Action 3) → Engineer A Departs Company (Event 3)
necessary factors: Company X's rejection of the safety recommendation creating an ethical conflict for Engineer A
necessary factors: Engineer A's assessment that internal remedies were exhausted or unavailable
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional and ethical standards being incompatible with continuing under the rejection decision
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (resignation decision) with shared responsibility attributable to Company X (creating the ethical conflict)
sufficient factors: Unresolved ethical conflict + perceived exhaustion of internal remedies + Engineer A's professional integrity = resignation decision
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER 08-10 Infant Respirator Confirmed Safety Concern Without Imminent Incident
type: ConfirmedRiskWithoutAdequateSafeguardsState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the relief valve placement issue through the Board's analysis of the case
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Hospitals
affectedparties: Infants using respirators
affectedparties: MedTech management
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: an infant could potentially experience dangerously high pressure levels—although no incidents had been reported
stateclass: Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
subject: MedTech infant respirator relief valve placement and Engineer A's escalation within MedTech
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts — hundreds of respirators were on market with issue unaddressed
textreferences: Hundreds of new respirators were then on the market, and Engineer A was concerned about the increasing likelihood of a tragic event
textreferences: a month later Engineer A learned from Engineer B that nothing had been done to correct the issue
textreferences: an infant could potentially experience dangerously high pressure levels—although no incidents had been reported
triggeringevent: Engineer A determined that a relief valve may have been incorrectly placed such that infants could experience dangerously high pressure levels; manager took no action for one month despite notification
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.696345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER 76-4 Client Conflict Arises
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: External_Reporting_Justification_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Internal reporting pathway exhausted; external reporting to regulatory authority becomes ethically justified and obligatory; client confidentiality yields to public safety imperative
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Protect_Public_From_Known_Safety_Risk
creates obligation: Report_To_Regulatory_Authority
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During BER 76-4 precedent case (referenced in Discussion section)
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: high
comment: In the precedent case BER 76-4, Engineer Doe's verbal report of findings to the client results in a conflict situation where the client's interests diverge from public safety, setting the stage for Engineer Doe's subsequent external reporting. This outcome establishes the precedent that internal reporting followed by client non-action can justify external disclosure.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER 76-4 Client Conflict Arises (Event 6) → Report Findings to Regulatory Authority (Action 6 - BER 76-4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In precedent case BER 76-4, upon learning that XYZ Corporation had called a public hearing and presented findings, Engineer Doe reported findings to the regulatory authority
cause: BER 76-4 Client Conflict Arises (Event 6)
counterfactual: Without XYZ Corporation calling a public hearing, Engineer Doe might not have escalated to regulatory reporting; the public hearing created both the trigger and the justification for external disclosure
effect: Report Findings to Regulatory Authority (Action 6 - BER 76-4)
necessary factors: Engineer Doe learning of the public hearing and XYZ Corporation's presentation of findings
necessary factors: Engineer Doe's assessment that XYZ Corporation's public presentation was incomplete or misleading relative to his own findings
necessary factors: Existence of a regulatory authority with jurisdiction to receive the report
necessary factors: XYZ Corporation calling a public hearing that triggered a new public forum
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer Doe (reporting decision) with XYZ Corporation's public hearing action serving as the proximate trigger
sufficient factors: Client's public hearing action + Engineer Doe's awareness of divergent findings + regulatory authority availability = obligation and decision to report externally
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER 76-4 Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report
type: ConfidentialityInstructionSuppressingSafetyReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report through Engineer Doe's learning of the public hearing
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
stateclass: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
subject: Engineer Doe's obligation to document and report environmental findings
terminatedby: Engineer Doe's ethical obligation to report findings to the authority
textreferences: Engineer Doe concluded that the plant's discharge would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Engineer Doe verbally advised the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
triggeringevent: XYZ Corporation explicitly instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report after he verbally advised them of findings showing discharge would lower water quality below established standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.696009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER 76-4 Public Safety at Risk from Environmental Discharge
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer Doe's conclusion that discharge would lower water quality below standards through the public hearing
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer Doe concluded that the plant's discharge would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Quality of receiving body of water relative to established environmental standards
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts presented
textreferences: Engineer Doe concluded that the plant's discharge would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
textreferences: his duty to the public to be paramount
triggeringevent: Engineer Doe's technical conclusion that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.696164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER_Case_08-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 08-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently in BER Case 08-10, Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech, a company that manufactured medical equipment.
textreferences: More recently in BER Case 08-10, Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech, a company that manufactured medical equipment.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem.
textreferences: only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations in the present case
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing the graduated internal escalation framework engineers must follow before threatening or pursuing external regulatory reporting, and the ethical constraints on premature ultimatums to management regarding regulatory disclosure
version: 2008
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.693681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER_Case_76-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 76-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in BER Case No. 76-4, the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water.
textreferences: In concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: in BER Case No. 76-4, the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer has an ethical obligation to report findings to a public authority when a client suppresses adverse environmental data and a public hearing is convened, grounding the principle that public safety obligations are paramount over client confidentiality
version: 1976
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.693539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER Case No. 76-4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER Multi-Case Synthesis Consumer Product Safety Calibration
type: Multi-CaseBERPrecedentSynthesisforConsumerProductSafetyReportingCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Case BER Precedent Synthesis for Consumer Product Safety Reporting Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review possesses the capability to synthesize BER Cases 76-4 and 08-10 as a calibrated precedent framework for determining the appropriate scope and sequence of safety reporting obligations in the current case involving general safety concerns, absent standards, and post-employment hearing participation
casecontext: The BER synthesized multiple prior cases to establish the appropriate calibrated framework for Engineer A's reporting obligations in the current case
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's discussion synthesizing BER Cases 76-4 and 08-10 to establish the calibrated framework applied to Engineer A's current situation
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma on several occasions, and the Board's decision in each of these situations depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved.
textreferences: For example, in BER Case No. 76-4...
textreferences: More recently in BER Case 08-10...
textreferences: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma on several occasions, and the Board's decision in each of these situations depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Case 142 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 7
event count: 6
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.937095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

CausalLink_Consider Testifying at Public
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

CausalLink_Escalate with External Reporti
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

CausalLink_Recommend Additional Safety Te
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

CausalLink_Reject Additional Testing Reco
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

CausalLink_Report Findings to Regulatory
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

CausalLink_Resign From Company X
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

CausalLink_Verbally Report Findings to Cl
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
type: ClientConfidentialityvs.PublicSafetyBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating the ethics of hearing participation
usedincontext: Governs how Engineer A must balance confidentiality obligations to former employer Company X against the paramount obligation to protect consumer safety when deciding whether and how to testify at the public safety standards hearing
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.690724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Client_Confidentiality_vs_Public_Safety_Balancing_Framework_Individual
type: ClientConfidentialityvs.PublicSafetyBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code and professional norms)
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's competing obligations
usedincontext: Applied to determine the conditions under which Engineer A may participate in the public safety hearing without violating confidentiality obligations to Company X, and to establish the graduated escalation steps before external reporting is warranted
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.694134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Absent Standards Employer Reasonableness Non-Violation Constraint
type: AbsentStandardsEmployerReasonablenessNon-Ethical-ViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new consumer product on cost and schedule grounds, in the absence of any governmental or industry standards specifically addressing the product
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A and professional ethics reviewing bodies
constraintclass: Absent Standards Employer Reasonableness Non-Ethical-Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: In the absence of governmental or industry standards to guide Company X's product safety decisions, Engineer A and professional ethics reviewing bodies are constrained from characterizing Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing as an ethical violation, recognizing that the regulatory standards vacuum creates a zone of reasonable employer discretion.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case analysis of present case
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
temporalscope: At the time of Company X's rejection of additional safety testing and throughout the ethics review
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.933203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Employer Reasonableness in Absent Standards Context
type: EmployerReasonablenessRecognitioninAbsent-StandardsContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer Reasonableness Recognition in Absent-Standards Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing protocols was recognized as not unreasonable given the absence of governmental or industry standards to guide the decision
casecontext: Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new consumer product after Engineer A raised general safety concerns based on inconsistent performance, in a context where no governmental or industry standards existed to guide the decision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's determination that Company X's rejection of additional testing was not an unreasonable decision given the absence of applicable standards, distinguishing this from the MedTech BER 08-10 situation involving a specific identified design defect
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Company X (Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.934069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer
type: Safety-RejectingManufacturingEmployer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'industry': 'Consumer product manufacturing', 'decision': 'Rejected additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds', 'regulatory_status': 'Subject to government public safety standards hearing'}
caseinvolvement: Company X employs Engineer A in consumer product design and manufacturing, completes standard safety testing, rejects Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing due to cost and delay concerns, and is the subject of the subsequent government public safety standards hearing.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of', 'target': 'Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer
sourcetext: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
textreferences: Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
textreferences: the new product developed by Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.691641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Safety Rejection Ethical Violation Recognition
type: EmployerCost-ScheduleRejectionNon-AcquiescenceSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer Cost-Schedule Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Company X lacked — or failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that rejecting Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing solely on cost and schedule grounds, when unique safety concerns had been identified, constituted an ethical violation of the obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare.
casecontext: Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, failing to recognize that this rejection — in the face of identified unique safety concerns and a regulatory gap — constituted an ethical violation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation based solely on cost and schedule considerations, without adequate consideration of the identified unique safety concerns.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.927105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Standard Safety Testing Policies and Procedures
type: ConsumerProductSafetyTestingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Company X (internal) and/or industry standard bodies
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Company X Standard Safety Testing Policies and Procedures
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Consumer Product Safety Testing Standard
sourcetext: Company X's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
textreferences: Company X's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
textreferences: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures
usedby: Company X and Engineer A in evaluating product safety adequacy
usedincontext: The completed safety testing process that demonstrated the product is within acceptable safety parameters, against which Engineer A's additional safety concerns are evaluated
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.689960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X rejecting the recommendation before Engineer A's resignation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing. Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X.
from entity text: Company X rejecting the recommendation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's resignation
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s resignation
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X’s product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's three stated conditions for ethical participation, the temporal gap of one year between Engineer A's resignation and the public safety standards hearing introduces a distinct epistemic obligation that the Board did not address: Engineer A must affirmatively assess whether the safety concerns observed during employment remain materially accurate at the time of testimony. If Company X has modified the product design, conducted additional testing, or otherwise addressed the performance inconsistencies in the intervening year, Engineer A's testimony based on stale observations could mislead the hearing authority rather than inform it. Objectivity under Code Section II.3.a requires not merely that Engineer A believe what is said, but that the factual basis for the testimony be current enough to support the conclusions offered. Engineer A therefore bears a pre-testimony duty of epistemic diligence — to the extent possible without breaching confidentiality — to determine whether the conditions that gave rise to the safety concern still obtain, and to qualify testimony accordingly if they cannot be verified.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A may participate provided confidentiality agreements are not violated implicitly assumes that the boundary between general professional knowledge and employer-specific confidential information is clear and stable. In practice, this boundary is highly porous in the context of a novel consumer product operating in a regulatory standards vacuum. Because no external standards exist against which to benchmark the product's safety performance, virtually any technically meaningful testimony Engineer A could offer about performance inconsistencies would necessarily draw on observations made exclusively within Company X's proprietary testing environment. The Board's third condition — non-disclosure of confidential information — may therefore be structurally difficult to satisfy without reducing Engineer A's testimony to generalities so abstract as to be of limited value to the hearing authority. The Board should have acknowledged this structural tension and provided guidance on how Engineer A can calibrate testimony to remain within the confidentiality boundary while still fulfilling the public interest testimony obligation. One workable approach consistent with Code Section III.4 is for Engineer A to testify about the category of safety concern — the nature of the performance inconsistency and the type of additional testing that would be warranted — without identifying Company X's specific product data, internal deliberations, or proprietary design details.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's analysis treats Engineer A's participation as a binary ethical question — permissible or not — but does not address the prior and arguably more pressing question of whether Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to escalate safety concerns to the government agency immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, rather than waiting one year until a public hearing was announced. Code Section II.1.a imposes a duty to notify appropriate authorities when engineering judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property. The absence of applicable governmental or industry standards does not extinguish this duty; if anything, the regulatory vacuum heightens it, because the public safety hearing is not the only institutional mechanism available and may not be the most timely one. The one-year delay, while not rendering Engineer A's eventual testimony unethical, does suggest that Engineer A may have underweighted the proactive risk disclosure obligation in the period immediately following Company X's rejection. The Board's silence on this point leaves open a significant gap in the ethical analysis: the permissibility of eventual testimony does not retroactively satisfy any obligation that may have existed to report earlier. Engineers facing analogous situations should understand that the ethical clock on escalation begins at the moment of employer rejection, not at the moment a convenient institutional forum appears.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion implicitly treats Engineer A's status as a private citizen and former employee as ethically neutral relative to a retained expert witness, but this equivalence deserves scrutiny. A retained expert witness operates under formal procedural constraints — disclosure obligations, cross-examination, daubert-type competence standards — that provide institutional checks on bias and epistemic overreach. Engineer A, appearing as a private citizen witness, operates without these structural safeguards. This asymmetry does not render Engineer A's participation unethical, but it does place a heightened self-imposed obligation on Engineer A to police the appearance of personal grievance, to distinguish between professional safety judgment and residual resentment toward a former employer that rejected a recommendation and contributed to a resignation, and to present testimony in a manner that a neutral professional would recognize as objective. The virtue ethics framework is particularly apt here: the professional virtues of courage, integrity, and practical wisdom require Engineer A not merely to testify, but to testify in a manner that would withstand scrutiny from a reasonable peer who knew both the safety concern and the employment history. The Board's condition of objectivity, while necessary, is insufficient without this additional self-critical dimension.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Drawing on the BER 76-4 precedent involving Engineer Doe, a critical distinction emerges that the Board in the present case did not fully develop: in BER 76-4, Engineer Doe's safety concern was grounded in a confirmed violation of an existing environmental standard, which meant the confidentiality constraint under Code Section III.4 was clearly displaced by the public danger exception. In the present case, Engineer A's concern is grounded in observed performance inconsistencies in a regulatory standards vacuum — a materially weaker epistemic foundation. This distinction has two analytical consequences the Board should have addressed. First, the good faith belief standard that suffices to permit testimony in the present case would not have been sufficient to compel testimony in the BER 76-4 scenario; the presence of a confirmed violation in BER 76-4 converted permission into obligation. Second, because Engineer A's concern lacks the anchor of a violated standard, the epistemic qualification constraint is more demanding: Engineer A must be especially careful to frame testimony as professional judgment about observed inconsistencies and the need for further investigation, rather than as a finding of demonstrated danger. The absence of applicable standards cuts both ways — it heightens the importance of the hearing as a standard-setting mechanism, but it also means Engineer A cannot claim the authority of a violated benchmark to support the testimony.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's three conditions for ethical participation — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — are framed as independent requirements, but they interact in ways that create a compound constraint the Board did not analyze. Specifically, the confidentiality constraint may limit the scope of testimony that Engineer A can offer, and that limitation in turn affects whether Engineer A can satisfy the technical competence condition in a meaningful sense. If the most technically significant safety observations Engineer A possesses are inseparable from confidential product-specific data, then complying with the confidentiality constraint may reduce Engineer A's testimony to a level of generality at which Engineer A no longer qualifies as a competent expert on the specific safety question before the hearing. In that scenario, Engineer A would face a trilemma: breach confidentiality to testify competently, testify incompetently to preserve confidentiality, or decline to testify. The Board's framework does not resolve this trilemma. The most ethically defensible resolution, consistent with Code Sections II.3.b and III.4, is that Engineer A should testify only to the extent that technically meaningful and accurate testimony can be offered without breaching confidentiality, and should explicitly disclose to the hearing authority the existence and nature of the limitation — without revealing the confidential content — so that the hearing authority can assess the weight and completeness of the testimony accordingly.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101, Engineer A did not have a clear ethical obligation to report safety concerns to a governmental authority immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation. At that moment, no applicable governmental or industry standards existed for the product, no confirmed safety failure had occurred, and Engineer A's concerns were grounded in observed performance inconsistencies rather than a documented violation of an established standard. Code Section II.1.a requires notification to authorities when engineering judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, but the threshold of 'endangerment' requires more than a good-faith professional concern in a regulatory vacuum. The absence of any governing standard meant there was no objective benchmark against which Company X's product could be declared non-compliant or dangerous. Immediate external disclosure at that stage would have risked premature harm to Company X's commercial interests without a sufficiently firm epistemic foundation. The one-year gap, while not ideal, does not itself constitute an ethical failure, because the triggering institutional mechanism — the public safety standards hearing — did not exist until the government agency announced it. Engineer A's ethical obligation to escalate externally crystallized when that hearing was announced, not when the internal recommendation was rejected.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102, the one-year temporal gap between Engineer A's resignation and the public safety hearing does introduce a meaningful epistemic constraint on the reliability of Engineer A's testimony, though it does not render participation unethical. Product designs, manufacturing processes, and safety testing data may have evolved during that interval, and Engineer A's knowledge is necessarily frozen at the point of departure from Company X. This temporal attenuation has two ethical implications. First, Engineer A has an obligation under Code Section II.3.a to be objective and truthful, which requires explicitly framing testimony as reflecting conditions observed during employment rather than asserting current product status. Second, Engineer A must exercise professional competence in acknowledging the limits of that knowledge, particularly if competitors' products or updated versions of Company X's product are also under review at the hearing. The temporal gap does not diminish the ethical weight of Engineer A's testimony about the systemic regulatory gap — the absence of standards applicable to this product category — because that structural observation remains valid regardless of product-specific changes. However, product-specific safety claims must be qualified accordingly. The Board's condition requiring objective and truthful testimony implicitly encompasses this epistemic honesty obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103, Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation occupies an ethically ambiguous rather than clearly violative position. On one hand, the product had passed standard safety testing within accepted parameters, no applicable governmental or industry standards mandated further testing, and the rejection was driven by cost and delay considerations that are commercially legitimate in the absence of a regulatory requirement. On the other hand, when a qualified engineer raises specific, professionally grounded safety concerns based on observed performance inconsistencies — concerns that the completed standard testing did not address — an employer's refusal to investigate those concerns solely on cost grounds represents a failure to give adequate weight to the public safety paramount principle. The ethical violation, if any, is not that Company X declined optional testing, but that it declined without engaging substantively with the engineering basis for Engineer A's concern. A commercially reasonable decision in an absent-standards context is not automatically an ethically reasonable one when a credentialed engineer has identified a specific, articulable safety gap. The Board's framework implicitly acknowledges this by treating Engineer A's concern as legitimate enough to support public testimony, which would be incoherent if Company X's rejection were entirely beyond ethical reproach.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104, Engineer A's status as a private citizen rather than a retained expert witness materially changes the ethical texture of the analysis in two respects, though not the ultimate permissibility of participation. As a private citizen acting on personal professional judgment rather than as a hired advocate, Engineer A faces a reduced risk of the structural bias that retained expert witnesses carry — namely, the financial incentive to shade testimony toward the retaining party's position. This actually strengthens the objectivity dimension of the Board's three conditions. However, Engineer A's status as a former employee who resigned after a conflict with Company X introduces a different appearance problem: the testimony may be perceived as motivated by personal grievance rather than disinterested professional concern. This appearance risk does not make participation unethical, but it does impose a heightened obligation on Engineer A to ensure that testimony is scrupulously confined to technically grounded observations, explicitly qualified as reflecting conditions at the time of employment, and free of any advocacy framing that could suggest retaliatory intent. Code Section II.3.b permits engineers to express public technical opinions founded on knowledge and competence, and this provision applies with equal force to private citizens as to retained experts. The ethical burden is on Engineer A to demonstrate through the substance and tone of testimony that the public safety motivation is genuine and primary.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201, the tension between the Confidentiality principle under Code Section III.4 and the Public Welfare Paramount principle under Code Section I.1 is real but resolvable in this case without requiring either principle to be entirely displaced. The confidentiality obligation survives post-employment and prohibits Engineer A from disclosing, without consent, confidential information concerning Company X's business affairs or technical processes. However, the public welfare paramount principle does not require Engineer A to disclose confidential specifics in order to serve the hearing's purpose. The hearing is a standard-setting proceeding, not a product liability adjudication. Engineer A can provide substantial value to the hearing by testifying about the general category of safety concerns observed, the nature of the performance inconsistencies at a level of abstraction that does not reveal proprietary design details, and the structural inadequacy of existing testing frameworks for this product category — all without breaching confidentiality. The ethical resolution is not a hierarchy in which one principle defeats the other, but a calibration in which Engineer A contributes the maximum safety-relevant information that can be shared without crossing the confidentiality boundary. Only if Engineer A possessed knowledge of an imminent, specific, and serious danger to the public — analogous to the confirmed violation in BER 76-4 — would the confidentiality obligation be fully displaced by the public danger exception.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q203, a good-faith professional belief based on observed performance inconsistencies is a sufficient epistemic basis for participation in a public safety standards hearing, but it is not a sufficient basis for asserting confirmed danger as a matter of fact. The distinction is critical. Code Section II.3.b permits engineers to express publicly technical opinions founded on knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter. A good-faith concern grounded in direct professional observation during product development satisfies the 'knowledge of the facts' requirement — Engineer A witnessed the inconsistencies firsthand. Professional competence in risk assessment then converts those observations into a reasoned safety concern. What good faith alone cannot support is testimony that characterizes the product as definitively unsafe or that overstates the certainty of harm. Engineer A's epistemic obligation is to present the concern as what it is: a professionally grounded inference from observed data that warrants further investigation, not a confirmed finding of danger. This framing is not merely a rhetorical nicety — it is the ethical boundary between legitimate expert opinion and misleading testimony. The potential commercial harm to Company X from overstated testimony makes this epistemic precision an ethical imperative, not just a professional courtesy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A does not face a categorical, unconditional duty to testify at the public safety standards hearing in the Kantian sense, but does face a strong prima facie duty that is difficult to override. The NSPE Code imposes an affirmative obligation to hold public safety paramount and, under Code Section II.1.a, to notify appropriate authorities when engineering judgment is overruled in ways that may endanger life or property. The public safety hearing is precisely the institutional mechanism through which that notification can be made. A strict deontological reading would hold that Engineer A's duty to testify is not contingent on personal convenience, reputational risk, or the uncertainty of outcome — the duty flows from the role of engineer and the nature of the safety concern, not from a calculation of consequences. However, the deontological framework also recognizes that duties can conflict: the duty of confidentiality is itself a genuine obligation, not merely a preference. The resolution is not that public safety always defeats confidentiality categorically, but that Engineer A has a duty to testify to the maximum extent that confidentiality permits. Silence in the face of a government-convened safety hearing, when Engineer A possesses relevant professional knowledge, would be difficult to justify on deontological grounds as anything other than a failure of professional duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.3.b.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate public safety benefit of Engineer A's testimony at the hearing plausibly outweighs the identified harms, but the analysis is more nuanced than a simple benefit-harm comparison. On the benefit side, Engineer A's testimony could contribute to the establishment of safety standards for an entire product category affecting all consumers of this class of products — a systemic benefit that extends far beyond the specific Company X product. The hearing is precisely the institutional mechanism designed to aggregate such professional knowledge into protective regulation. On the harm side, the risks include: inadvertent confidentiality breach harming Company X's competitive position, reputational damage to Company X based on unverified concerns, and the epistemic uncertainty inherent in testimony grounded in performance inconsistencies rather than confirmed failures. The consequentialist calculus favors testimony because: (1) the Board's three conditions — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — substantially mitigate the identified harms; (2) the systemic benefit of sound safety standards is large and durable; and (3) the cost of Engineer A's silence — a missed opportunity to inform a once-in-a-generation standard-setting process for a new product category — is itself a significant harm to the public interest. The epistemic uncertainty in Engineer A's concerns is a reason for careful framing of testimony, not for silence.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's decision to testify within the Board's three stated conditions — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — represents a paradigmatic exercise of the professional virtues of courage, integrity, and practical wisdom. Courage is demonstrated by willingness to participate in a public proceeding that carries reputational risk and potential legal exposure from a former employer, motivated by professional duty rather than personal gain. Integrity is demonstrated by the commitment to testify truthfully and objectively even when a more self-protective course — silence — is available and arguably defensible. Practical wisdom, the Aristotelian virtue of phronesis, is demonstrated precisely by the calibrated approach the Board's conditions embody: neither the excess of reckless disclosure that ignores confidentiality obligations, nor the deficiency of cowardly silence that abandons public safety obligations, but the mean of principled, bounded, competent testimony. The virtue ethics analysis also highlights that the manner of testimony matters as much as the decision to testify: an engineer who testifies with epistemic humility, acknowledges the limits of personal knowledge, and refrains from advocacy framing demonstrates greater professional virtue than one who testifies with certainty or apparent animus toward a former employer.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.281992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, the absence of applicable governmental or industry safety standards for Company X's new product heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's duty to testify. The deontological reasoning proceeds as follows: the NSPE Code's public safety paramount obligation is not contingent on the existence of a regulatory framework — it is a foundational professional duty that exists independently of whether standards have been codified. In a regulatory vacuum, the public safety hearing is not merely one of several available mechanisms for Engineer A to fulfill the notification obligation under Code Section II.1.a — it is the primary and perhaps only institutional mechanism through which Engineer A's professional judgment can be converted into protective standards applicable to the entire product category. The absence of standards means that Engineer A's testimony carries greater marginal value than it would in a mature regulatory environment where other engineers, inspectors, and compliance mechanisms already exist to surface safety concerns. A deontological framework that grounds duty in the nature of the professional role and the vulnerability of the public would therefore conclude that the regulatory vacuum creates a heightened, not diminished, obligation to participate — because the hearing is the mechanism through which the vacuum itself is addressed.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q401, if Engineer A were still employed by Company X at the time of the public safety standards hearing, the ethical calculus would change materially and the Board's three conditions would be insufficient on their own to resolve the resulting tension. An active employment relationship creates a faithful agent obligation under the NSPE Code that does not exist post-employment. Testifying at a public hearing about safety concerns that Company X has already rejected — while still employed there — would place Engineer A in direct conflict with the employer's interests in a way that resignation has already resolved in the current case. The active employment context would require Engineer A to first exhaust all internal escalation pathways, including escalation above Supervisor B to senior management or a board-level safety committee, before considering external testimony. If internal escalation were exhausted and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the Code's public safety paramount obligation would still permit — and potentially require — external disclosure, but the faithful agent obligation would demand that Engineer A provide Company X with notice and an opportunity to respond before testifying publicly. The Board's three conditions address the content and manner of testimony but do not address the procedural obligations that active employment would impose. A fourth condition — exhaustion of internal remedies — would be necessary to resolve the tension in the active employment scenario.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q402, if Engineer A had escalated safety concerns directly to the relevant government agency immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, that earlier disclosure would have been ethically permissible but not ethically required, and potentially premature given the epistemic and regulatory context at that time. It would have been permissible because Code Section II.1.a does not specify a waiting period before notifying appropriate authorities when engineering judgment is overruled in ways that may endanger life or property. However, it would not have been required because: (1) no imminent harm had materialized; (2) no applicable regulatory standards existed against which the product could be declared non-compliant; (3) the relevant government agency had not yet established a forum for receiving such concerns; and (4) Engineer A's concerns were grounded in performance inconsistencies rather than a confirmed safety failure. Premature disclosure to a government agency without an established regulatory framework or hearing process risks being ineffective — the agency may have no mechanism to act on the concern — and could expose Engineer A to confidentiality liability without producing any public safety benefit. The ethical calculus favors waiting for the institutional mechanism — the public hearing — to exist before escalating externally, provided Engineer A did not observe any escalation in the safety risk during the intervening period that would have triggered an immediate reporting obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q403, drawing on the BER 76-4 precedent, if Engineer A's safety concerns had been based on a confirmed, documented violation of an existing standard rather than a good-faith belief about inconsistent performance in a regulatory vacuum, the confidentiality constraint under Code Section III.4 would not have been entirely displaced, but the public danger exception would have operated with far greater force, and Engineer A would have faced an obligation — not merely a permission — to testify. In BER 76-4, Engineer Doe's situation involved a confirmed violation of an established environmental standard, which the Board treated as triggering a clear duty to report despite confidentiality instructions. The key distinction is that a confirmed violation of an existing standard provides the objective, verifiable basis that transforms a professional concern into a public danger — the epistemic threshold that justifies overriding confidentiality. In the current case, the absence of applicable standards means there is no benchmark against which a 'violation' can be confirmed, which is precisely why the Board treats Engineer A's participation as ethically permissible rather than obligatory. A confirmed violation in an existing-standards context would shift the analysis from permissibility to obligation, and would require Engineer A to disclose the specific safety information necessary to protect the public even if that disclosure incidentally revealed confidential details — subject to the constraint that disclosure be limited to what is necessary to address the danger.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 3 a
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q404, if Engineer A's testimony were to inadvertently reveal proprietary details about Company X's product design — even without intent to breach confidentiality — the resulting harm to Company X's competitive position would not retroactively render Engineer A's participation unethical, provided the Board's three conditions were met in good faith. The ethical evaluation of conduct is assessed at the time of the decision and action, not retroactively by reference to unintended consequences that a reasonable person could not have foreseen. If Engineer A exercised genuine professional judgment in calibrating testimony to avoid confidential specifics, testified truthfully and objectively, and possessed the requisite technical competence, then an inadvertent disclosure that resulted from the inherent difficulty of separating general safety knowledge from proprietary knowledge does not constitute an ethical violation — it constitutes an unfortunate but non-culpable outcome. However, this insulation from retroactive ethical liability is conditional: it applies only if Engineer A made a genuine, documented effort to identify and avoid confidential information before testifying, and did not take undue risks with information that a reasonable engineer would have recognized as proprietary. If Engineer A was reckless or insufficiently careful in that pre-testimony assessment, the inadvertent disclosure would reflect a failure to meet the Board's third condition in good faith, and the ethical insulation would not apply. The public safety imperative justifies the risk of participation but does not excuse negligence in managing that risk.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Confidentiality and Public Welfare Paramount was resolved not by displacing confidentiality entirely, but by drawing a precise boundary: Engineer A may testify about professional observations, engineering judgment, and safety concerns without disclosing the proprietary business details, internal deliberations, or product design specifics that confidentiality agreements protect. This resolution treats the two principles as operating on different domains of information rather than as direct competitors. Public welfare paramount governs what Engineer A is permitted — and arguably obligated — to say about safety concerns observed through professional competence; confidentiality governs the channel and content of disclosure, not the decision to participate at all. The case therefore teaches that confidentiality is a constraint on the manner of public safety disclosure, not a veto over it, particularly in a post-employment context where the engineer participates as a private citizen rather than as a company representative.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits and Proactive Risk Disclosure was resolved at the moment Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional testing, not at the moment Engineer A chose to testify. The case reveals a sequential principle structure: the faithful agent obligation is primary and requires internal escalation first, but it is exhausted — not merely weakened — once the employer has made a final cost-driven rejection of a safety recommendation in a regulatory vacuum. After that rejection, the proactive risk disclosure principle becomes operative and is no longer constrained by the faithful agent duty. Engineer A's resignation further confirms this transition: by departing, Engineer A formally exited the agency relationship, removing any residual argument that testifying at a public hearing would constitute a breach of ongoing employer loyalty. The case teaches that faithful agent obligations are temporally bounded by both the employer's final decision and the termination of the employment relationship itself.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: II 3 b
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.3.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between the Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting and Professional Competence in Risk Assessment was resolved by the Board in a manner that treats good faith professional judgment as a sufficient — though not unlimited — epistemic basis for public testimony, provided that testimony is framed as expert opinion grounded in observed facts rather than as a confirmed finding of defect. This resolution carries an important prioritization lesson: the absence of a documented safety failure or an applicable standard does not raise the evidentiary bar for testimony to the level of certainty; it instead shifts the framing obligation onto the engineer. Engineer A must testify as a competent professional offering a reasoned opinion about observed performance inconsistencies, not as a whistleblower asserting a proven violation. The Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation actually heightens rather than diminishes the value of this testimony precisely because the public hearing is the institutional mechanism through which good-faith professional judgment is converted into protective standards. The case therefore teaches that in a regulatory vacuum, the epistemic threshold for testimony is calibrated to the standard of professional competence — what a qualified engineer in good faith believes based on observed evidence — rather than to the higher standard of confirmed harm or existing regulatory violation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Consider Testifying at Public Hearing
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: former Company X employee, professional engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Positive contribution to public safety standards development if testimony is appropriate and objective
foreseen unintended effects: Possible legal exposure from former employer
foreseen unintended effects: Potential breach of confidentiality obligations to Company X if testimony discloses protected information
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of testimony exceeding Engineer A's technical competence boundaries
fulfills obligation text: Duty to consider public safety obligations as a professional engineer when presented with a relevant public forum
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmental authorities when internal remedies have been exhausted (consistent with BER 76-4)
guided by principle text: Engineers should engage with governmental processes when they have relevant safety knowledge
guided by principle text: Public safety, health, and welfare as paramount engineering obligation
guided by principle text: Respect for confidentiality obligations even after employment ends
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and objectivity in professional communications
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberative and conscientious
intended outcome: Determine whether participating as a hearing witness would appropriately fulfill Engineer A's public safety obligations while respecting confidentiality and professional competence boundaries
raises obligation text: Duty to assess competence boundaries before agreeing to serve as expert witness
requires capability text: Ability to provide objective, evidence-based testimony
requires capability text: Professional judgment to distinguish between what can be disclosed and what is protected by confidentiality
requires capability text: Technical expertise in the specific product safety area being addressed at the hearing
requires capability text: Understanding of formal governmental hearing procedures and expert witness standards
temporal marker: One year after resignation, at the time of the government agency's public safety standards hearing announcement
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: One year after resigning from Company X, upon learning that the relevant government agency announced a public safety standards hearing covering the new product category, Engineer A faces and actively considers the decision of whether to participate as a witness at the hearing. This is the central volitional decision analyzed in the case.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Consumer_Product_Safety_Testing_Standard_Individual
type: ConsumerProductSafetyTestingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Governmental agencies and industry bodies
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Governmental and Industry Product Safety Standards
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Consumer Product Safety Testing Standard
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Company X's conduct and Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Referenced as the absent or undeveloped standard framework: the lack of governmental or industry standards for Company X's new product is cited as a mitigating factor in evaluating Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing, and the public safety standards hearing is convened to develop such standards
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.693842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, and if so, under what epistemic and confidentiality constraints must that testimony be calibrated?
focus: Engineer A's decision whether to participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, one year after resigning from Company X, given good-faith safety concerns about the new consumer product that were rejected internally on cost and schedule grounds.
option1: Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, testifying about the category of safety concern and the nature of observed performance inconsistencies at a level of abstraction that avoids Company X's proprietary design details, explicitly framing testimony as professional judgment based on conditions observed during employment rather than as confirmed findings of current product danger
option2: Decline to participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing on the grounds that the one-year temporal gap, the absence of confirmed safety incidents, and the structural difficulty of separating safety observations from confidential product-specific knowledge make it impossible to testify in a manner that is simultaneously technically meaningful, objectively framed, and confidentiality-compliant
option3: Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing and testify fully about all observed performance inconsistencies and internal testing data, treating the public safety paramount principle as displacing post-employment confidentiality obligations given the regulatory vacuum and the absence of any other institutional mechanism through which the safety concern can be surfaced
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.282847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: After Company X rejected the additional safety testing recommendation on cost and schedule grounds, was Engineer A obligated to escalate the safety concern to a governmental authority immediately upon rejection, or was it ethically permissible to wait until the public safety standards hearing was announced approximately one year later?
focus: Engineer A's decision whether to treat Company X's cost-driven rejection of the additional safety testing recommendation as a final resolution of the safety concern, or to assess whether the rejection triggers an escalating obligation to bring the concern to appropriate governmental authorities — and the timing of that escalation relative to the eventual public hearing.
option1: After Company X's rejection, assess the safety concern as not yet meeting the urgency threshold for immediate external reporting given the absence of confirmed incidents, applicable standards, or an established regulatory forum, and wait for an appropriate institutional mechanism — such as the announced public safety standards hearing — before escalating externally, while remaining alert to any escalation in safety risk during the intervening period that would trigger an earlier reporting obligation
option2: After Company X's rejection, escalate the safety concern directly to the relevant government agency without waiting for a formal hearing to be announced, treating the cost-driven rejection of a credentialed engineer's safety recommendation in a regulatory vacuum as itself sufficient to trigger the notification obligation under Code Section II.1.a regardless of whether an established regulatory forum yet exists
option3: After Company X's rejection, exhaust remaining internal escalation channels above Supervisor B — including senior management or a board-level safety committee — before treating the rejection as final, and only upon confirmed exhaustion of all internal mechanisms assess whether the safety concern meets the threshold for external reporting to a governmental authority
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Was Engineer A obligated to proactively recommend additional safety testing to Supervisor B based on observed performance inconsistencies, and does Company X's completion of standard safety testing preclude or extinguish that obligation?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to recommend additional safety testing to Supervisor B after observing inconsistent product performance issues, notwithstanding Company X's completion of standard safety testing within acceptable parameters — and the ethical weight of that internal recommendation as a prerequisite to subsequent escalation.
option1: Proactively recommend to Supervisor B that Company X conduct additional safety testing specifically designed to address the observed performance inconsistencies, explicitly identifying the unique safety concerns not captured by the completed standard testing and grounding the recommendation in specialized engineering competence rather than general caution
option2: Document the observed performance inconsistencies in internal engineering records as a professional notation of residual concern, but defer to Company X's completion of standard safety testing as a sufficient basis for product release, treating the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards as confirmation that no additional testing obligation exists beyond what standard protocols require
option3: Raise the observed performance inconsistencies informally with Supervisor B as a professional observation warranting monitoring during post-market surveillance, without formally recommending a new series of pre-release tests, on the grounds that the concerns are insufficiently specific to justify the cost and schedule impact of additional testing in the absence of any governing standard defining what additional testing would be required
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, and if so, under what epistemic and confidentiality constraints?
focus: Engineer A Post-Employment Public Safety Hearing Participation Decision
option1: Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, testifying about the category of safety concern and the nature of observed performance inconsistencies at a level of abstraction that avoids proprietary Company X product data, explicitly framing all product-specific observations as reflecting conditions at the time of employment and acknowledging the one-year temporal gap
option2: Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing and testify fully about all technically significant safety observations, including product-specific performance data, on the grounds that the public welfare paramount principle displaces the confidentiality obligation when a qualified engineer's judgment has been overruled in a regulatory vacuum and the hearing is the only available protective mechanism
option3: Decline to participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing on the grounds that the one-year temporal gap renders product-specific observations potentially unreliable, the confidentiality boundary cannot be reliably maintained without reducing testimony to useless abstraction, and the appearance of personal grievance from the resignation conflict cannot be adequately neutralized through self-imposed objectivity constraints alone
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Was Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation an ethical violation, and did Engineer A's non-acquiescence through resignation satisfy the non-acquiescence obligation under the NSPE Code?
focus: Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Status and Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Assessment
option1: Recommend additional safety testing to Company X through formal internal channels, document the safety concern and the engineering basis for it in writing, and resign upon final rejection rather than acquiescing — preserving the non-acquiescence obligation without premature external disclosure
option2: Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection escalate immediately to the relevant government agency with a formal safety concern report, on the grounds that the regulatory vacuum and the absence of any external oversight mechanism make immediate external escalation the only effective way to fulfill the proactive risk disclosure obligation
option3: Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection accept Company X's cost-driven determination as within the range of reasonable employer discretion in an absent-standards context — continuing employment while documenting the concern for future reference but deferring to the employer's judgment absent a confirmed safety failure or applicable regulatory requirement
role label: Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to escalate safety concerns to a governmental authority immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, or was waiting for the public hearing one year later ethically defensible given the epistemic and regulatory context?
focus: Engineer A Immediate Post-Rejection External Reporting Obligation vs. Contextual Calibration of Escalation Timing
option1: Wait for an established institutional forum — such as the announced public safety standards hearing — before escalating safety concerns externally, on the grounds that the endangerment threshold for mandatory immediate reporting was not clearly met and premature disclosure without an effective regulatory mechanism risks confidentiality liability without producing public safety benefit
option2: Escalate safety concerns directly to the relevant government agency immediately after Company X's rejection, submitting a formal written safety concern report that frames the concern as professional judgment about observed performance inconsistencies warranting regulatory attention, without disclosing proprietary Company X product data
option3: After resigning from Company X, monitor publicly available information about the product category and escalate to a government agency only if evidence of actual harm or a confirmed safety incident emerges during the intervening period, treating the absence of imminent harm and the absence of applicable standards as jointly sufficient to defer external reporting until a concrete triggering event occurs
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A BER 08-10 Internal Escalation Exhaustion Assessment
type: InternalEscalationExhaustionBeforeExternalReportingAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Internal Escalation Exhaustion Before External Reporting Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A at MedTech lacked the capability to correctly assess that internal escalation pathways had not been sufficiently exhausted before threatening external regulatory reporting — prematurely threatening external reporting to the manager rather than first determining what internal steps were being taken and exploring internal mechanisms for further recourse
casecontext: Engineer A at MedTech identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement in an infant respirator, reported it to a non-engineer manager, and after a month of inaction threatened external regulatory reporting rather than first exhausting internal escalation pathways
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's premature threat to report to a federal regulatory agency before exhausting internal escalation mechanisms, which the BER found to be unethical
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
textreferences: it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
textreferences: the Board decided that Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns. However, if after making the additional inquiries, Engineer A determined that no meaningful action was being taken to address the issue, Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.934204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Employer Rejection Non-Acquiescence
type: EmployerCost-ScheduleRejectionNon-AcquiescenceSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer Cost-Schedule Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A at MedTech possessed the capability to recognize that MedTech's failure to take corrective action for over a year after receiving the safety concern report did not discharge the professional obligation to escalate the identified safety concern about the infant respirator's relief valve placement.
casecontext: MedTech received Engineer A's safety concern report through a non-engineer manager and failed to take corrective action for over a year, requiring Engineer A to recognize that this inaction did not discharge the professional safety obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's continued pursuit of the safety concern after MedTech failed to take corrective action, reflecting non-acquiescence to the employer's inaction in the face of an identified safety risk.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10: Manufactured infant respirators; received Engineer A's safety concern report through a non-engineer manager; failed to take corrective action for over a year.
textreferences: MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10: Manufactured infant respirators; received Engineer A's safety concern report through a non-engineer manager; failed to take corrective action for over a year.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.927373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A BER 08-10 Standard Testing Non-Preclusion Recognition
type: StandardTestingComplianceNon-PreclusionofAdditionalSafetyConcernReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standard Testing Compliance Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A at MedTech possessed the capability to recognize that the infant respirator's compliance with existing safety standards did not preclude the professional obligation to report the potentially dangerous relief valve placement as a unique safety concern requiring further investigation.
casecontext: Engineer A at MedTech identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement on an infant respirator and reported it through proper channels, recognizing that the product's existing manufacture and distribution did not preclude the obligation to report the unique safety concern.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification and reporting of the potentially dangerous relief valve placement on the infant respirator despite the product having been manufactured and distributed, reflecting recognition that standard compliance does not foreclose additional safety concern reporting.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer: Employed by MedTech; asked by colleague Engineer B to evaluate an infant respirator; identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement; reported the concern.
textreferences: Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer: Employed by MedTech; asked by colleague Engineer B to evaluate an infant respirator; identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement; reported the concern.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.926939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Citizen Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression at Hearing
type: CitizenAdvocacyWhistleblowerNon-SuppressionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is considering whether post-employment confidentiality obligations or other professional constraints prohibit participation in the government hearing. The whistleblower non-suppression principle establishes that such participation remains available regardless of other constraints.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Citizen Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression Constraint
constraintstatement: No provision of professional engineering ethics — including post-employment confidentiality obligations, the faithful agent duty to former employer Company X, or the absence of applicable product-specific safety standards — may be construed as prohibiting Engineer A from participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing when public health and safety is at risk from the new consumer product's unresolved performance inconsistencies.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); whistleblower protection framework; BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
temporalscope: During Engineer A's consideration of participation in the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.929092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Completed Testing Non-Preclusion of Hearing Participation Constraint
type: EngineerACompletedTestingNonPreclusionOfHearingParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Standard safety testing demonstrated the product is within acceptable safety parameters. Engineer A nonetheless holds a professional belief that performance inconsistencies raise unique safety concerns. The completed testing constrains but does not eliminate Engineer A's ability to raise concerns at the hearing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Standard Safety Testing Completion Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Obligation
constraintstatement: The fact that Company X's standard safety testing was completed and demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters does not preclude Engineer A from participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing — but it does constrain the form of that participation by requiring Engineer A to acknowledge the completed testing compliance while presenting the residual professional concern as a matter of engineering judgment rather than as evidence of testing failure.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); NSPE Code Section II.3 (objective and truthful); BER Case 08-10
sourcetext: the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
temporalscope: During Engineer A's consideration of and participation in the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.928765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information Non-Deployment Against Former Employer at Hearing
type: InsiderKnowledgeNon-DeploymentAgainstFormerClientConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A possesses confidential internal knowledge of Company X's safety testing process, the rejection of additional testing recommendations, and internal product performance data. This insider knowledge must not be weaponized against Company X beyond what public safety necessity requires.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Insider Knowledge Non-Deployment Against Former Client Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from deploying specialized insider knowledge of Company X's internal deliberations, rejected safety recommendations, proprietary product design details, or strategic business decisions against Company X at the government public safety standards hearing — arising from the principle that prior access to confidential employer information creates a residual duty of non-adversarial use that survives employment termination, except to the minimum extent necessary to discharge the paramount public safety obligation.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4 (faithful agent and trustee obligations); Section III.4 (confidential information from prior employment); BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests
temporalscope: During Engineer A's participation as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, one year after resignation from Company X
textreferences: Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.928933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information from Company X Employment
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's employment through the present consideration of witness participation
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A's possession of confidential product safety information and internal company deliberations acquired during employment with Company X
terminatedby: Not terminated; persists post-employment
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests
textreferences: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
triggeringevent: Engineer A's participation in Company X's safety testing process and internal recommendation process created knowledge of confidential product and business information
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.692810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Disclosure Constraint at Hearing
type: Post-EmploymentConfidentialityBoundaryinPublicTestimonyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A holds confidential product safety information and internal company deliberations acquired during employment with Company X and is considering testifying at a government hearing covering Company X's product type
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Employment Confidentiality Boundary in Public Testimony Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate confidentiality agreements with Company X, even when participating in a government public safety standards hearing where such information might be relevant to the regulatory inquiry.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Confidentiality agreements with Company X; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4
sourcetext: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
temporalscope: Throughout the government public safety standards hearing and post-employment period
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.932621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Recognition
type: ConsumerProductInconsistentPerformanceSafetyConcernRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Concern Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the technical and ethical capability to recognize that observed inconsistent product performance during and following standard safety testing indicated unique safety concerns requiring further investigation, despite the product's demonstrated compliance with standard safety parameters.
casecontext: Engineer A observed inconsistent product performance during and after standard safety testing and correctly identified these as unique safety concerns requiring additional testing to determine whether the product would be operated safely by consumers.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification of inconsistent product performance issues and formation of the professional opinion that these raised unique safety concerns warranting a new series of consumer safety tests.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.926257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
type: ConsumerProductSafetyDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'employer': 'Company X', 'specialty': 'Consumer product design and safety'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A is employed by Company X to work on the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product, observes inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns after standard safety testing, recommends additional testing to Supervisor B, is overruled on cost grounds, resigns, and one year later considers testifying at a government public safety standards hearing.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Company X'}
relationships: {'type': 'potential_witness', 'target': 'Government Safety Standards Hearing'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Supervisor B'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests
textreferences: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.691179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Contextual Safety Reporting Calibration
type: ContextualSafetyReportingCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Contextual Safety Reporting Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to calibrate the scope and form of public safety reporting obligations to the general, non-demonstrative nature of the safety concerns identified — recognizing that general inconsistent-performance concerns support permissible good-faith hearing participation and general regulatory notification rather than immediate mandatory external reporting
casecontext: Engineer A identified general product safety concerns due to inconsistent performance, not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern, requiring calibration of the appropriate reporting response
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the safety concerns were general and based on inconsistent product performance rather than clear or demonstrative expressed safety concerns, and the BER's calibration of the resulting obligations accordingly
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: it appears that Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
textreferences: There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.933939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Recognition
type: ConsumerProductInconsistentPerformanceSafetyConcernRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Concern Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that observed inconsistent product performance — even when the product has passed standard safety testing — indicates unique safety concerns requiring further investigation and reporting to appropriate authorities
casecontext: Engineer A observed inconsistent performance in a new consumer product developed by Company X and recognized this as indicating unique safety concerns beyond what standard testing had addressed
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification of general product safety concerns based on inconsistent performance and belief that the new product raised unique safety concerns requiring additional study and analysis
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.934807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary
type: Post-EmploymentProprietaryInformationBoundaryCalibrationinPublicTestimonyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary Calibration in Public Testimony Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to calibrate testimony at the government public safety standards hearing to share safety-relevant information in the public interest while refraining from disclosing proprietary or confidential information belonging to Company X in violation of any confidentiality agreements
casecontext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing one year after resigning from Company X, subject to the condition of not disclosing information that would violate confidentiality agreements with Company X
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification of the confidentiality condition as one of three prerequisites for permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
textreferences: Engineer A is obligated, as a condition of permissible participation in the government public safety standards hearing, to refrain from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.934637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Regulatory Gap Heightened Escalation Recognition
type: RegulatoryGapSafetyEscalationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the absence of governmental or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes the professional obligation to bring safety concerns to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities
casecontext: Engineer A identified unique safety concerns about a new consumer product in a context where no governmental or industry standards existed to guide the manufacturer, heightening the obligation to escalate to appropriate authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the unique safety concerns raised by the new product — in the absence of applicable standards — supported bringing concerns to appropriate governmental authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.934343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Standard Testing Non-Preclusion Recognition
type: StandardTestingComplianceNon-PreclusionofAdditionalSafetyConcernReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standard Testing Compliance Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that Company X's completion of standard safety testing does not preclude the professional obligation to bring additional unique safety concerns — based on observed inconsistent product performance — to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities
casecontext: Company X completed standard safety testing of the new consumer product, but Engineer A identified additional unique safety concerns based on inconsistent performance that fell outside the scope of the completed standard testing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that standard safety testing compliance did not discharge the obligation to report unique safety concerns to governmental authorities for further review
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis, and he advised Company X of this fact.
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis, and he advised Company X of this fact.
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.934489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Departs Company
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Former_Employee_Confidentiality_Constraint
activates constraint: Post_Employment_Duty_To_Public_Safety
activates constraint: Proprietary_Information_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from employee to former employee; employer loyalty obligations dissolve; confidentiality obligations persist; public safety obligations persist as a licensed professional engineer; Engineer A gains freedom to consider external disclosure
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Maintain_Confidentiality_Of_Proprietary_Info
creates obligation: Retain_Professional_Duty_To_Public_Safety_As_PE
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following rejection of additional testing recommendation (exact date unspecified; precedes one-year marker)
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A's resignation from Company X takes effect, formally ending the employment relationship and altering Engineer A's legal and ethical standing with respect to company confidential information and safety concerns. This transition changes but does not eliminate Engineer A's professional obligations.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Employer Rejection Non-Acquiescence Escalation
type: EmployerCost-ScheduleRejectionNon-AcquiescenceSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer Cost-Schedule Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Company X's rejection of the additional safety testing recommendation on cost and schedule grounds did not discharge the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to assess appropriate escalation pathways including eventual participation in government safety standards hearings.
casecontext: After Company X rejected the recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce to the rejection as a final resolution of the safety concern, ultimately considering participation in government safety standards hearings one year after resignation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's subsequent resignation from Company X and consideration of participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, reflecting non-acquiescence to the employer's cost-driven rejection of safety recommendations.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.926467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Faces Testimony Decision
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Confidentiality_Balancing_Constraint
activates constraint: Former_Employer_Notification_Consideration
activates constraint: Professional_Engineer_License_Obligations
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A's ethical status shifts from passive former employee to active deliberating professional with renewed public safety obligations; the ethical framework must now balance confidentiality, public safety, civic duty, and professional integrity simultaneously
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Whether_Safety_Concern_Meets_Threshold_For_Testimony
creates obligation: Consider_Notifying_Former_Employer_Of_Intent_To_Testify
creates obligation: Evaluate_Scope_Of_Permissible_Disclosure
creates obligation: Limit_Testimony_To_Non_Proprietary_Safety_Findings
emergency status: high
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Following public announcement of safety hearing (one year post-resignation)
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A finds themselves in a state of active ethical deliberation about whether to testify at the government safety hearing, a condition triggered by the hearing announcement and their possession of relevant safety knowledge. This is not a decision itself but the resulting state of ethical obligation and deliberation that the hearing announcement produces.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint at Government Hearing
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's safety concerns are based on observed performance inconsistencies during employment. Standard safety testing demonstrated compliance with acceptable parameters. Engineer A must ground any hearing testimony in factual observations rather than unverified concerns.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from expressing technical opinions at the government public safety standards hearing that are not founded upon established facts and completed analysis — prohibiting disclosure of unverified concerns as if they were established professional findings, and requiring that testimony be grounded in the specific performance inconsistencies Engineer A actually observed rather than speculative extrapolations about consumer harm.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3 (objective and truthful professional manner); Section II.5.a (no false statements or misrepresentations)
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
temporalscope: During Engineer A's participation as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.928415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation
type: EthicalReasoning
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Reasoning
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the ethical reasoning capability to fulfill the faithful agent obligation to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B before considering external escalation.
casecontext: Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent obligation by first recommending additional safety testing internally to Supervisor B, consistent with the principle of advising the client/employer before escalating externally.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's internal recommendation to Supervisor B for additional safety testing, reflecting proper sequencing of faithful agent obligations before external escalation.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.926649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Objectivity at Government Safety Hearing
type: ForensicExpertWitnessObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to testify at the government public safety standards hearing in an objective and truthful manner — independent of any former employer loyalty or personal interests — as a prerequisite condition for permissible participation
casecontext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing and must testify objectively and truthfully as a condition of permissible participation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification of objective and truthful testimony as the second of three prerequisite conditions for permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
textreferences: Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Good Faith Belief Public Safety Reporting Permissibility Constraint
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernWithoutDemonstrableViolationEscalationBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A holds a good faith belief that Company X's new consumer product raises unique safety concerns based on inconsistent performance, without confirmed incidents or specific demonstrative safety violations, and is considering whether to bring these concerns to governmental authorities
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's good faith belief that Company X's product raises public safety concerns for consumers permits — but does not mandate — bringing those concerns to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities, constrained by the requirement that the concerns be presented as good faith professional judgment rather than confirmed violations, and that the reporting be consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case analysis of present case
sourcetext: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: Post-employment period following resignation from Company X
textreferences: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.933360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Good Faith Concern Epistemic Qualification Constraint at Hearing
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernWithoutDemonstrableViolationEscalationBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Company X's standard safety testing demonstrated the product is within acceptable safety parameters. Engineer A's concerns are based on observed performance inconsistencies that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns, but no applicable standards exist against which a violation could be measured.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from presenting safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product as confirmed violations or established safety failures at the government hearing, given that standard safety testing was completed and demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters, and no applicable governmental or industry standards specifically address the product — requiring Engineer A to qualify testimony as professional judgment based on observed performance inconsistencies rather than as findings of regulatory non-compliance.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3 (objective and truthful professional manner); Section II.5.a (no false statements); BER Case 76-4 (fact-grounded reporting obligation)
sourcetext: the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
temporalscope: During Engineer A's participation as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.927741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A MedTech Premature External Reporting Threat Prohibition
type: GraduatedInternalEscalationExhaustionBeforeExternalReportingThreatConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A at MedTech threatened to report the infant respirator relief valve issue to a federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken, before exhausting internal escalation pathways
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (MedTech context, BER Case 08-10)
constraintclass: Graduated Internal Escalation Exhaustion Before External Reporting Threat Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A at MedTech was constrained from threatening external regulatory reporting to the manager as a coercive tactic before exhausting internal escalation pathways — including determining what internal steps were being taken, exploring internal mechanisms for further recourse, and confirming that no meaningful action was being taken.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 08-10
sourcetext: the Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
temporalscope: During the period of internal escalation at MedTech before external reporting consideration
textreferences: Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns
textreferences: only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action
textreferences: the Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.933047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A No Black and White Standard Contextual Calibration Constraint
type: EngineerANoBlackAndWhiteStandardContextualCalibrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER explicitly notes that there is no black and white standard applicable to these types of cases and that the Board's decision depends on specific facts and circumstances
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A and professional ethics reviewing bodies
constraintclass: Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer A and professional ethics reviewing bodies are constrained from applying a single uniform standard to Engineer A's public safety reporting obligations, requiring instead that the nature, specificity, and form of the obligation be calibrated to the specific facts and circumstances — including the general rather than demonstrative nature of the safety concern, the absence of applicable standards, and the post-employment context.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case analysis of present case
sourcetext: There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
temporalscope: Throughout the ethics review and Engineer A's decision-making process
textreferences: There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
textreferences: the Board's decision in each of these situations depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.933646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Acquiescence After Company X Rejection Escalation Constraint
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds. Engineer A subsequently resigned. The rejection does not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation to pursue appropriate escalation pathways when public safety concerns persist.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation of faithful agency to Company X — including deference to Company X's cost-driven rejection of additional safety testing — is constrained by the paramount obligation to public safety, establishing that Engineer A cannot treat Company X's rejection as a complete discharge of professional safety obligations when Engineer A continues to hold a good-faith belief that the product raises unique safety concerns for consumers.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); Section II.4 (faithful agent obligations); BER Case 08-10 (graduated internal escalation before external reporting)
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
temporalscope: From the time Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing through Engineer A's resignation and subsequent consideration of hearing participation
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.928567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Truthful Testimony Constraint
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernObjectiveTestimonyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's safety concerns are based on inconsistent product performance and not on any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern, requiring that testimony accurately reflect this epistemic limitation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Objective Testimony Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to testify in an objective and truthful manner at the government public safety standards hearing, prohibiting advocacy for a predetermined conclusion, overstatement of the certainty of safety concerns, or presentation of general performance inconsistencies as confirmed safety violations.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, II.5; BER case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
temporalscope: Throughout the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
textreferences: Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.932764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A One-Year Temporal Attenuation Confidentiality Assessment
type: One-YearPost-EmploymentTemporalAttenuationofConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A resigned from Company X and one year later is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing. The one-year interval is relevant to assessing whether specific confidential information from employment remains protected.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: One-Year Post-Employment Temporal Attenuation of Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must assess whether the one-year interval since resignation from Company X has sufficiently attenuated the confidentiality obligations attached to specific categories of information — distinguishing between information that remains competitively sensitive or proprietary and information whose public safety relevance now outweighs residual confidentiality interests — before determining the permissible scope of testimony at the government hearing.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4 (faithful agent obligations); post-employment confidentiality norms; temporal proximity analysis from BER case precedent
sourcetext: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
temporalscope: One year after Engineer A's resignation from Company X, at the time of considering participation in the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.928093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A One Year Post-Employment Temporal Attenuation Confidentiality Constraint
type: One-YearPost-EmploymentTemporalAttenuationofConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A resigned from Company X approximately one year before the government agency's public safety standards hearing and is considering whether to participate as a witness
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: One-Year Post-Employment Temporal Attenuation of Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: The passage of approximately one year between Engineer A's resignation from Company X and Engineer A's consideration of participation in the government public safety standards hearing is a relevant but not dispositive factor in assessing the scope of residual confidentiality obligations — temporal distance may attenuate but does not eliminate post-employment confidentiality duties regarding Company X's proprietary product information.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
temporalscope: One year post-resignation from Company X, at the time of hearing participation consideration
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
textreferences: One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the government agency's public safety standards hearing
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.933782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Confidentiality Boundary at Government Hearing
type: Post-EmploymentConfidentialityBoundaryinPublicTestimonyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A resigned from Company X one year before a government agency announced a public safety standards hearing covering Company X's new consumer product. Engineer A possesses confidential internal knowledge of safety concerns and Company X's rejection of additional testing recommendations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Employment Confidentiality Boundary in Public Testimony Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from disclosing Company X's proprietary product data, internal deliberations, rejected safety recommendations, and confidential manufacturing information when participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, even though Engineer A possesses this information from prior employment and it may be relevant to the hearing's subject matter.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4 (faithful agent and trustee obligations surviving employment); post-employment confidentiality norms; BER Case 76-4 (balancing confidentiality against public safety reporting)
sourcetext: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
temporalscope: At and following the government public safety standards hearing, one year after Engineer A's resignation from Company X
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.927554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Capability
type: Post-EmploymentPublicSafetyTestimonyParticipationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Participation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional obligation to participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, given specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product directly relevant to the hearing, one year after resigning from Company X.
casecontext: One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A considered participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing covering the new consumer product, possessing specialized knowledge of safety concerns not addressed by existing standards.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's consideration of participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing covering the product category for which Engineer A had identified unique safety concerns during employment.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.702441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Technical Competence Self-Assessment
type: AIToolCompetenceAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Tool Competence Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to self-assess whether they hold the technical competence required to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which testimony will be offered at the government public safety standards hearing — as a prerequisite condition for permissible participation
casecontext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing and must assess whether they possess the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the relevant area
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.72
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification of technical competence as the first of three prerequisite conditions for permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
textreferences: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
type: Post-EmploymentPublicSafetyStandardsWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'prior_employer': 'Company X', 'hearing_subject': 'New consumer product safety standards including Company X product', 'participation_status': 'Considering participation'}
caseinvolvement: One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing covering the new consumer product category, bringing insider technical knowledge of the product's safety concerns and the employer's rejection of additional testing.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_employee', 'target': 'Company X'}
relationships: {'type': 'potential_witness_before', 'target': 'Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: One year later
textreferences: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.691323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Proprietary Information Boundary Calibration in Testimony
type: Post-EmploymentProprietaryInformationBoundaryCalibrationinPublicTestimonyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary Calibration in Public Testimony Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to calibrate post-employment testimony at the government public safety standards hearing to share safety-relevant information in the public interest while refraining from disclosing proprietary or confidential information belonging to Company X.
casecontext: If Engineer A participates as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, Engineer A must calibrate testimony to share safety-relevant observations while honoring residual confidentiality obligations to former employer Company X.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's need to navigate the boundary between sharing safety concerns about inconsistent product performance — which serves the public interest — and protecting Company X's proprietary technical processes and confidential business information when testifying at the government hearing.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.702616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Public Interest Testimony Obligation Recognition
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product — directly relevant to the government public safety standards hearing — created a professional obligation to escalate those concerns to the public regulatory authority through hearing participation, transcending the former employment relationship.
casecontext: One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A recognized that specialized knowledge of unique safety concerns about the new consumer product created a professional obligation to participate in the government public safety standards hearing covering that product category.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's consideration of participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, reflecting recognition that the public interest in safety information outweighs residual loyalty to former employer Company X.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.926800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality at Hearing
type: PublicSafetyParamountOverConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A possesses knowledge of safety concerns about a consumer product that is the subject of a government public safety standards hearing. The tension between post-employment confidentiality obligations and the paramount public safety duty must be resolved in favor of public safety to the minimum extent necessary.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's post-employment confidentiality obligations to Company X are constrained by the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare — establishing that if Engineer A's testimony at the government public safety standards hearing is necessary to prevent a clear risk to consumer safety, the public safety obligation may override residual confidentiality duties, but only to the extent necessary to address the identified safety risk and not as a general license to disclose all confidential Company X information.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); BER Case 76-4 (public safety paramount over confidentiality); NSPE Code Section II.4 (faithful agent obligations)
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
temporalscope: During Engineer A's consideration of and participation in the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.928257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Recognition
type: RegulatoryGapSafetyEscalationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightened rather than diminished the professional obligation to escalate identified safety concerns about inconsistent product performance.
casecontext: Engineer A identified unique safety concerns about a new consumer product in a regulatory gap context where no applicable national standards existed, and pursued escalation through internal recommendation and post-employment hearing participation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that no governmental or industry standards existed for the new consumer product, and that this regulatory gap amplified the duty to recommend additional safety testing and, after employer rejection, to consider participation in government safety standards hearings.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety.
textreferences: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety.
textreferences: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.702141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Standards Vacuum Testimony Framing Constraint
type: RegulatoryStandardsVacuumHeightenedEscalationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: No governmental or industry standards relating to the new consumer product exist other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures. The government agency is holding a hearing specifically to develop new standards for this category of products.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Standards Vacuum Heightened Escalation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from framing testimony at the government public safety standards hearing as reporting violations of non-existent standards, and must instead frame participation as professional engineering input contributing to the development of new standards — clearly disclosing the absence of applicable product-specific standards and the basis for the professional safety concern.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.713055+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a (objective and truthful); NSPE Code Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); absence of applicable governmental or industry standards for the new consumer product
sourcetext: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures
temporalscope: During Engineer A's participation as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
textreferences: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures
textreferences: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.927944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Standard Testing Non-Preclusion Recognition
type: StandardTestingComplianceNon-PreclusionofAdditionalSafetyConcernReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Standard Testing Compliance Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the new consumer product's demonstrated compliance with standard safety testing parameters did not preclude the professional obligation to report additional unique safety concerns arising from observed inconsistent product performance.
casecontext: Engineer A observed inconsistent performance issues after standard safety testing was completed and demonstrated compliance, and correctly identified that this did not discharge the obligation to recommend further testing.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recommendation for a new series of tests despite the product having passed standard safety testing, reflecting understanding that standard testing compliance does not foreclose additional safety inquiry when unique concerns are observed.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.702299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Technical Competence Prerequisite for Hearing Participation
type: TechnicalCompetencePrerequisiteforExpertHearingParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government agency public safety standards hearing covering the type of product developed by Company X, requiring self-assessment of domain-specific competence
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Technical Competence Prerequisite for Expert Hearing Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A may participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing only if Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the specific area in which Engineer A is testifying, prohibiting participation as an engineering expert in technical domains outside Engineer A's demonstrated competence.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; BER case analysis
sourcetext: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
temporalscope: Prior to and throughout the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.932901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A first reporting respirator issue to manager (BER 08-10) before Engineer A learning no action had been taken (BER 08-10)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A brought the issue and his proposed solution to the attention of the appropriate manager...However, a month later Engineer A learned from Engineer B that nothing had been done to correct the issue.
from entity text: Engineer A first reporting respirator issue to manager (BER 08-10)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A learning no action had been taken (BER 08-10)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A learning no action had been taken BER
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A learning no action had been taken (BER 08-10) before Engineer A urging manager again and threatening external report (BER 08-10)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: a month later Engineer A learned from Engineer B that nothing had been done to correct the issue...Engineer A again urged the manager to take immediate action. When the manager indicated that the matter was still being looked into by a design team, Engineer A indicated that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem, he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency.
from entity text: Engineer A learning no action had been taken (BER 08-10)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A urging manager again and threatening external report (BER 08-10)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A urging manager again and threatening ex
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A observing inconsistent performance issues before Engineer A recommending additional testing to Supervisor B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns. Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests
from entity text: Engineer A observing inconsistent performance issues
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A recommending additional testing to Supervisor B
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A recommending additional testing to Supe
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A recommending additional testing before Company X rejecting the recommendation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
from entity text: Engineer A recommending additional testing
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Company X rejecting the recommendation
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Company X rejecting the recommendation
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A's resignation before government agency announcing public safety standards hearing
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X. One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing
from entity text: Engineer A's resignation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: government agency announcing public safety standards hearing
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: government agency announcing public safety standar
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague
type: ProfessionalPeerRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'employer': 'MedTech', 'role_type': 'Engineering colleague'}
caseinvolvement: Company colleague of Engineer A at MedTech who asked Engineer A to evaluate the infant respirator design; later informed Engineer A that no corrective action had been taken by management.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Professional Peer Role
sourcetext: Engineer B, a company colleague of Engineer A, asked Engineer A to evaluate a respirator designed by MedTech for infant use
textreferences: Engineer B, a company colleague of Engineer A, asked Engineer A to evaluate a respirator designed by MedTech for infant use
textreferences: a month later Engineer A learned from Engineer B that nothing had been done to correct the issue
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.695392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Contract Reporting Persistence
type: DischargedEngineerPost-TerminationReportingPersistenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's termination of the contract and instruction not to render a written report did not extinguish the professional obligation to report adverse environmental findings to the State Pollution Control Authority.
casecontext: After XYZ Corporation terminated the contract upon receiving adverse verbal findings and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report, Engineer Doe faced the obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority despite the terminated client relationship.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer Doe's recognition that the terminated client relationship did not discharge the obligation to report findings that contradicted the corporation's public hearing testimony, and the obligation to report to the State Pollution Control Authority.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:01:05.692525+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer: Performed consulting engineering services for XYZ Corporation to evaluate whether plant discharge met environmental standards; concluded discharge did not meet standards; XYZ Corporation terminated the contract and instructed not to render a written report.
textreferences: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer: Performed consulting engineering services for XYZ Corporation to evaluate whether plant discharge met environmental standards; concluded discharge did not meet standards; XYZ Corporation terminated the contract and instructed not to render a written report.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.927240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Termination Reporting Persistence
type: DischargedEngineerPost-TerminationReportingPersistenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that the termination of his contract with XYZ Corporation and the instruction not to render a written report did not extinguish the professional obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that the corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing
casecontext: Engineer Doe's contract was terminated after he verbally advised XYZ Corporation of adverse findings; upon learning the corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing, he was obligated to report his findings to the authority
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The BER's conclusion that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, despite contract termination and client instruction to the contrary
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:48.761354+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe (BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: In concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Doe Post-Termination Public Hearing Reporting Constraint
type: Client-SuppressedFindingsPublicHearingCorrectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Doe concluded that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards, was terminated and instructed not to report, then learned the corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe (BER Case 76-4)
constraintclass: Client-Suppressed Findings Public Hearing Correction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to report his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing, notwithstanding the contract termination and client instruction not to render a written report.
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:07:28.868076+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 76-4
sourcetext: upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
temporalscope: Upon learning of the public hearing and XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation
textreferences: The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount
textreferences: a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
textreferences: upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.933508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Doe completing studies (BER 76-4) before Engineer Doe completing written report (BER 76-4)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: After completing his studies but before completing a written report, Engineer Doe concluded that the plant's discharge would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards.
from entity text: Engineer Doe completing studies (BER 76-4)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer Doe completing written report (BER 76-4)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer Doe completing written report BER 76-4
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Doe verbally advising XYZ Corporation (BER 76-4) before XYZ Corporation terminating contract with Engineer Doe (BER 76-4)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer Doe verbally advised the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed
from entity text: Engineer Doe verbally advising XYZ Corporation (BER 76-4)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: XYZ Corporation terminating contract with Engineer Doe (BER 76-4)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: XYZ Corporation terminating contract with Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating obligations after resignation and when considering hearing participation
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate public safety concerns beyond Company X when the company fails to act on safety recommendations, including the scope of continuing obligations after resignation and the appropriateness of participating in the government standards hearing
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.690558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Individual
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code)
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns.
textreferences: if after making the additional inquiries, Engineer A determined that no meaningful action was being taken to address the issue, Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue.
textreferences: only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct and obligations in both BER Case 08-10 and the present case
usedincontext: Governs the graduated internal-then-external escalation process Engineer A must follow when a company fails to act on safety concerns, including exhausting internal mechanisms before pursuing external regulatory reporting
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.694310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
type: EngineerSafetyRecommendationRejectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
usedby: Engineer A following Company X's rejection of additional testing recommendation
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligations after Company X rejects the recommendation for additional safety testing, including documentation duties and determination of whether the refusal creates a public safety threat requiring escalation
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.690419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Escalate with External Reporting Threat
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: MedTech employee, BER 08-10
foreseen unintended effects: Possible premature external escalation before internal mechanisms were exhausted
foreseen unintended effects: Potential damage to working relationship with management
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of regulatory action based on a concern that had not yet been fully investigated internally
fulfills obligation text: Re-escalation of unresolved safety concern demonstrating persistence in public safety advocacy
fulfills obligation text: Urgency of response proportionate to the increasing market exposure of potentially dangerous devices
guided by principle text: Internal remedies must be exhausted before external action
guided by principle text: Proportionate and procedurally appropriate escalation
guided by principle text: Public safety urgency
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: urgent and coercive
intended outcome: Use the threat of external regulatory reporting as leverage to compel management to take immediate corrective action on the respirator valve safety issue
requires capability text: Engineering judgment about safety risk severity and urgency
requires capability text: Knowledge of internal organizational escalation mechanisms
requires capability text: Professional communication and escalation skills
requires capability text: Understanding of regulatory reporting obligations and thresholds
temporal marker: One month after initial report to manager, upon learning no corrective action had been taken (BER 08-10)
temporal sequence: 13
violates obligation text: Duty to inquire about and understand internal processes before bypassing them
violates obligation text: Obligation to exhaust internal remedies before threatening external action (per Board's analysis)
violates obligation text: Professional obligation to use measured escalation rather than coercive threats
within competence: true
comment: In precedent case BER 08-10, after learning one month later that nothing had been done to correct the potentially dangerous respirator valve placement, Engineer A escalated by indicating to the manager that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem, Engineer A would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency. The Board found this action premature and unethical.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Escalate with External Reporting Threat (Action 7 - BER 08-10) → Systemic pressure on organizations to address safety concerns before public escalation
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In precedent case BER 08-10, after learning one month later that nothing had been done to correct the identified safety issue, the engineer escalated with an external reporting threat
cause: Escalate with External Reporting Threat (Action 7 - BER 08-10)
counterfactual: Had the organization taken corrective action within the one-month period, the escalation threat would not have been necessary; the inaction was the direct precipitating cause of escalation
effect: Systemic pressure on organizations to address safety concerns before public escalation
necessary factors: Engineer's continued monitoring of whether corrective action was taken
necessary factors: Engineer's knowledge of external reporting channels and willingness to use them
necessary factors: Organization's failure to act creating the conditions requiring escalation
necessary factors: Prior internal reporting of safety concern going unaddressed for a defined period (one month)
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer in BER 08-10 (escalation decision) with primary causal responsibility attributable to the organization's failure to act on the initial safety report
sufficient factors: Unaddressed safety concern + elapsed time + organization's inaction + engineer's awareness of external channels = escalation with external reporting threat
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Government Agency Public Safety Standard Hearing
type: PublicSafetyStandardsHearingParticipationFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Relevant government regulatory agency
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Safety Standard Hearing — New Consumer Products
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
sourcetext: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether to participate as a witness
usedincontext: The formal regulatory proceeding at which Engineer A is considering testifying, representing the institutional mechanism through which public safety standards for the new product class will be established
version: Announced one year after Engineer A's resignation
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.690238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
type: StateRegulatoryNotificationAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority_type': 'Federal or national product safety regulatory agency', 'proceeding_type': 'Public safety standard-setting hearing', 'scope': 'New consumer products including Company X product and competitor products'}
caseinvolvement: The relevant government agency announces and conducts a public safety standard hearing covering new consumer products including Company X's product, serving as the public regulatory forum at which Engineer A is considering testifying.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'potential_recipient_of_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Company X'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: State Regulatory Notification Authority
sourcetext: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
textreferences: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.691776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

II.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

II.3.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

III.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10
type: Safety-RejectingManufacturingEmployer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Private medical equipment manufacturer', 'product': 'Infant respirators'}
caseinvolvement: Manufactured infant respirators; received Engineer A's safety concern report through a non-engineer manager; failed to take corrective action for over a month despite the identified relief valve defect; indicated the matter was still being reviewed by a design team when pressed by Engineer A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague'}
rolecategory: stakeholder
roleclass: Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer
sourcetext: Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech, a company that manufactured medical equipment
textreferences: Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech, a company that manufactured medical equipment
textreferences: a month later Engineer A learned from Engineer B that nothing had been done to correct the issue
textreferences: the manager indicated that the matter was still being looked into by a design team
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.695261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount.
textreferences: Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Cited as the primary normative authority establishing the engineer's paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare, and governing Engineer A's obligations regarding the public safety standards hearing and potential regulatory reporting
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.693355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating professional obligations throughout the case
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations when observing safety concerns, recommending additional testing, and considering participation in the public safety standards hearing
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.689809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

National Product Safety Standards (General)
type: ConsumerProductSafetyTestingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Relevant national standards bodies and government agencies
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: National Product Safety Standards
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Consumer Product Safety Testing Standard
sourcetext: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
textreferences: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
textreferences: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures
usedby: Engineer A and Company X in assessing the regulatory environment for the new product
usedincontext: Referenced as the existing regulatory baseline that does not yet cover the new consumer product, establishing the regulatory gap that motivates both Engineer A's safety concerns and the government agency's public safety standards hearing
version: Current at time of case (gap noted: does not yet address the new product)
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.690099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Present Case Client Safety Recommendation Rejection by Company X
type: ClientSafetyRecommendationRejectionWithoutStandardsBasisState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Company X's rejection of additional testing through Engineer A's resignation
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Consumers of the product
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
stateclass: Client Safety Recommendation Rejection Without Standards Basis State
subject: Company X's rejection of Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing
terminatedby: Engineer A's resignation from Company X
textreferences: Engineer A advised Company X of this fact
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
triggeringevent: Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new product, citing the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards as justification
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.696880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Present Case Post-Employment Expert Witness Participation Consideration
type: Post-EmploymentSafetyConcernWitnessParticipationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's resignation through the Board's analysis of permissibility conditions
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Industry
affectedparties: Public safety standards body
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, who has since resigned from Company X, has been asked to participate as a witness at a public safety standards hearing
stateclass: Post-Employment Safety Concern Witness Participation State
subject: Engineer A's consideration of participation as witness at public safety standards hearing after resigning from Company X
terminatedby: Not resolved — Board determined participation is permissible subject to three conditions
textreferences: Engineer A, who has since resigned from Company X, has been asked to participate as a witness at a public safety standards hearing
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence... (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
triggeringevent: Engineer A was asked to participate as a witness at a public safety standards hearing after resigning from Company X, where the hearing subject matter relates to Engineer A's prior safety concerns
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.697060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Professional Competence Invoked Engineer A Current Case Testimony Prerequisite
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
balancingwith: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
concept category: Capability
concreteexpression: The Board conditions Engineer A's permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing on Engineer A possessing the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which he is testifying — competence is a prerequisite to ethically permissible expert participation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineers may not provide expert testimony in areas outside their competence — the public interest served by testimony is undermined rather than advanced when the testifying engineer lacks the technical expertise to provide reliable professional judgment in the relevant domain
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
tensionresolution: Competence is a threshold condition, not a balancing factor — if Engineer A lacks competence in the relevant area, participation is not ethically permissible regardless of the public welfare motivation
textreferences: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.930535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Professional Competence Standard
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests
usedby: Engineer A in forming and articulating the safety recommendation
usedincontext: Grounds Engineer A's professional judgment that the observed inconsistent product performance issues raise unique safety concerns not captured by the completed standard testing, establishing the basis for the recommendation for additional testing
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.690995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Professional_Competence_Standard_Hearing_Context
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code and professional norms)
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard for Expert Testimony
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
textreferences: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in establishing conditions for Engineer A's ethical hearing participation
usedincontext: Applied as one of the three conditions for ethical participation in the public safety standards hearing: Engineer A must possess technical competence in the area in which he is testifying
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.694477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Safety Hearing Announced
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Civic_Duty_To_Participate_In_Regulatory_Process
activates constraint: Confidentiality_Boundary_Constraint_In_Public_Forum
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: A legitimate public forum now exists for Engineer A's safety concerns; the ethical calculus shifts from 'should I act?' to 'how should I act?'; government imprimatur on the hearing provides legal protection and ethical legitimacy for testimony
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_What_Information_Can_Be_Disclosed
creates obligation: Consider_Notification_To_Former_Employer_Before_Testifying
creates obligation: Evaluate_Whether_To_Testify
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: One year after Engineer A's resignation
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: One year after Engineer A's resignation, a government agency publicly announces a safety standards hearing covering the specific product category in question. This exogenous governmental action creates a formal, legitimate public channel through which Engineer A's safety concerns can be officially addressed.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Safety Hearing Announced (Event 4) → Consider Testifying at Public Hearing (Action 4) → Engineer A Faces Testimony Decision (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: One year after resigning from Company X, upon learning that the relevant government agency announced a public safety standards hearing, Engineer A faces an active ethical deliberation about whether to testify
cause: Public Safety Hearing Announced (Event 4)
counterfactual: Without the public hearing announcement, Engineer A would have had no immediate forum or trigger for testimony; without material knowledge of the safety issue, testimony would have been irrelevant
effect: Consider Testifying at Public Hearing (Action 4) → Engineer A Faces Testimony Decision (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer A becoming aware of the hearing announcement
necessary factors: Engineer A possessing material knowledge about the safety inconsistency that would be relevant to the hearing
necessary factors: Government agency announcing a public safety hearing relevant to the product in question
necessary factors: Sufficient time elapsed (one year) creating temporal and employment distance from Company X
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A (deliberation and ultimate testimony decision) with the government agency creating the opportunity through the hearing announcement
sufficient factors: Relevant public hearing + Engineer A's awareness + possession of material safety knowledge = ethical deliberation about testimony obligation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Would it be ethical for Engineer A to participate as a witness at the public safety standard hearings?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to report safety concerns to a governmental authority or the public immediately after Company X rejected the recommendation for additional testing, rather than waiting until a public hearing was announced one year later?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the one-year gap between Engineer A's resignation and the public safety hearing affect the reliability or ethical weight of Engineer A's testimony, given that product designs, testing data, and safety conditions may have changed in the interim?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Was Company X's rejection of additional safety testing itself an ethical violation, given that the product operates in a regulatory standards vacuum and the safety concerns were raised by a qualified engineer based on observed performance inconsistencies?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.279986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: To what extent does Engineer A's status as a private citizen rather than a retained expert witness change the ethical analysis of participation in the public safety standards hearing, particularly regarding objectivity and the appearance of personal grievance against a former employer?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Confidentiality in the post-employment testimony context conflict with the principle of Public Welfare Paramount when Engineer A possesses non-public safety information about Company X's product that could be material to the government hearing but is potentially covered by a confidentiality agreement?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Loyal and Faithful Agent Obligation within ethical limits conflict with the principle of Proactive Risk Disclosure when Company X has completed standard safety testing that passed, yet Engineer A's professional judgment identifies residual safety concerns that the completed testing did not resolve?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting conflict with the principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment when Engineer A's safety concerns are based on observed performance inconsistencies rather than a confirmed safety failure, raising the question of whether a good faith belief alone is a sufficient epistemic basis for public testimony that could harm Company X's commercial interests?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation conflict with the principle of Employer Reasonableness in an Absent-Standards Context, given that Company X's rejection of additional testing may have been commercially reasonable precisely because no applicable standards existed to define what additional testing was required?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have a categorical duty to testify at the public safety standards hearing regardless of personal risk or inconvenience, given that the NSPE Code imposes an affirmative obligation to hold public safety paramount and to notify authorities when engineering judgment is overruled in ways that may endanger the public?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate public safety benefit of Engineer A's testimony at the hearing — potentially shaping new safety standards for an entire product category — outweigh the harms of possible confidentiality breaches, reputational damage to Company X, and the epistemic uncertainty inherent in Engineer A's unverified safety concerns?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of courage, integrity, and practical wisdom by choosing to testify within the Board's three stated conditions — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — rather than either remaining silent out of loyalty to a former employer or disclosing confidential details out of zeal for public safety?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the absence of applicable governmental or industry safety standards for Company X's new product heighten rather than diminish Engineer A's duty to testify, because the regulatory vacuum means the public safety hearing is the primary institutional mechanism through which Engineer A's professional judgment can be converted into protective standards?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had not resigned from Company X but were still employed there at the time of the public safety standards hearing, would the ethical calculus for participation as a witness change materially — particularly regarding the tension between the faithful agent obligation to an active employer and the public safety testimony obligation — and would the Board's three conditions be sufficient to resolve that tension?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had escalated safety concerns directly to the relevant government agency immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation — rather than waiting until the public hearing one year later — would that earlier disclosure have been ethically required, ethically permissible, or premature given that no imminent harm had yet materialized and no regulatory standards existed at that time?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Drawing on the BER 76-4 precedent involving Engineer Doe, if Engineer A's safety concerns had been based on a confirmed, documented violation of an existing standard rather than a good-faith belief about inconsistent performance in a regulatory vacuum, would the confidentiality constraint under Code Section III.4 have been entirely displaced by the public danger exception, and would Engineer A have faced an unambiguous obligation — not merely a permission — to testify?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A's testimony at the public safety standards hearing were to inadvertently reveal proprietary details about Company X's product design — even without intent to breach confidentiality — would the resulting harm to Company X's competitive position retroactively render Engineer A's participation unethical, or does the public safety imperative insulate Engineer A from that ethical liability provided the Board's three conditions were met in good faith?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.280706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Recommend Additional Safety Testing
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Company X employee, professional engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Additional cost burden to Company X
foreseen unintended effects: Possible friction with management over recommendation
foreseen unintended effects: Potential delay in product launch
fulfills obligation text: Duty to act within area of professional competence by flagging concerns rather than unilaterally deciding product is unsafe
fulfills obligation text: Duty to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount (NSPE Code)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to notify employer of safety concerns observed in the course of professional work
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to use internal channels before pursuing external remedies
guided by principle text: Exhaustion of internal remedies before external escalation
guided by principle text: Proactive risk identification as part of engineering practice
guided by principle text: Professional honesty and integrity in reporting observations
guided by principle text: Public welfare paramount over commercial interests
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and conscientious
intended outcome: Prompt Company X to conduct additional testing to resolve inconsistent performance concerns and mitigate potential consumer safety risks before product release
requires capability text: Ability to assess safety implications of inconsistent performance data
requires capability text: Engineering judgment to identify anomalous product performance
requires capability text: Knowledge of product safety testing methodologies
requires capability text: Professional communication to articulate safety concerns to management
temporal marker: During and following completion of standard safety testing, prior to resignation
temporal sequence: 2
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A observed inconsistent product performance following completed standard safety testing and formally recommended to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to assess consumer safety. This decision was made despite the product having passed existing safety parameters and in the absence of any governing standards specific to the new product.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Recommend Additional Safety Testing (Action 1) → Reject Additional Testing Recommendation (Action 2) → Additional Testing Rejected (Event 2)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Company X's management, through the decision-making process involving Supervisor B and organizational hierarchy, formally rejects Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing, citing cost and schedule concerns
cause: Recommend Additional Safety Testing (Action 1)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's recommendation, there would have been no formal decision to reject; without management's cost-driven priorities, the recommendation might have been accepted; either change could have altered the outcome
effect: Reject Additional Testing Recommendation (Action 2) → Additional Testing Rejected (Event 2)
necessary factors: Absence of mandatory regulatory requirement compelling additional testing
necessary factors: Company X management's authority to override engineering recommendations
necessary factors: Engineer A's formal recommendation triggering a management decision point
necessary factors: Organizational prioritization of cost and schedule over precautionary safety measures
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Company X Management (including Supervisor B and organizational decision-makers)
sufficient factors: Management authority + cost/schedule pressure + lack of binding regulatory mandate = rejection of recommendation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Reject Additional Testing Recommendation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: corporate decision-makers
foreseen unintended effects: Possible dissatisfaction or departure of Engineer A
foreseen unintended effects: Potential unresolved safety concerns remaining in the product
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of future liability if safety issues materialize post-launch
fulfills obligation text: Compliance with existing applicable safety standards and testing procedures
fulfills obligation text: Exercise of business judgment within legal and regulatory boundaries
guided by principle text: Business efficiency and market competitiveness
guided by principle text: Compliance-based rather than precautionary approach to safety
guided by principle text: Cost-benefit analysis in product development decisions
has agent: Company X management / Supervisor B
has mental state: deliberate and commercially motivated
intended outcome: Avoid additional cost and product launch delays while relying on the sufficiency of completed standard safety testing
requires capability text: Business judgment regarding cost-benefit of additional testing
requires capability text: Corporate risk assessment and management decision-making
requires capability text: Evaluation of regulatory compliance status
temporal marker: Shortly after Engineer A's recommendation, prior to Engineer A's resignation
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Arguably, a broader ethical obligation to proactively investigate credible safety concerns raised by a qualified engineer, even absent regulatory mandate
violates obligation text: Duty of responsible care toward consumers when a professional engineer has flagged potential unique safety risks
within competence: true
comment: Company X's management, through the decision-making process involving Supervisor B and organizational leadership, rejected Engineer A's recommendation to conduct additional safety testing. The rejection was explicitly based on the projected cost of additional testing and the anticipated delay to product launch.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Report Findings to Regulatory Authority
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: former consulting engineer, BER 76-4
foreseen unintended effects: Breach of implicit client confidentiality expectations
foreseen unintended effects: Potential adverse regulatory outcome for XYZ Corporation
foreseen unintended effects: Potential legal or professional retaliation from XYZ Corporation
fulfills obligation text: Duty to correct misleading information before a regulatory body when engineer possesses contrary evidence
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to provide truthful information to governmental authorities
fulfills obligation text: Paramount duty to public safety, health, and welfare (NSPE Code)
guided by principle text: Engineers' obligation to engage with public regulatory processes when they possess relevant safety knowledge
guided by principle text: Public welfare paramount over client loyalty
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and integrity in professional conduct
has agent: Engineer Doe
has mental state: obligatory and conscientious
intended outcome: Ensure the regulatory authority had accurate information about the discharge's impact on water quality standards, correcting the incomplete or misleading picture presented by XYZ Corporation
requires capability text: Ability to present technical findings in regulatory proceedings
requires capability text: Environmental engineering expertise to substantiate findings before regulatory authority
requires capability text: Knowledge of applicable environmental quality standards
temporal marker: Upon learning of the public hearing called by XYZ Corporation (BER 76-4)
temporal sequence: 12
violates obligation text: Implicit client confidentiality, though the Board determined public safety obligation superseded this
violates obligation text: Possible contractual constraints from the terminated engagement
within competence: true
comment: In precedent case BER 76-4, upon learning that XYZ Corporation had called a public hearing and presented data supporting its position that discharge met minimum standards, Engineer Doe faced the decision of whether to report his contrary findings to the regulatory authority. The Board concluded this reporting was an ethical obligation.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Resign From Company X
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Company X employee, professional engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Loss of direct ability to influence Company X's product safety decisions from within
foreseen unintended effects: Potential future tension between confidentiality obligations to former employer and public safety obligations
foreseen unintended effects: Preservation of Engineer A's professional integrity by not continuing to be associated with a product Engineer A believed raised unresolved safety concerns
fulfills obligation text: Implicit recognition that internal remedies had been exhausted at the recommendation level
fulfills obligation text: Protection of personal professional integrity by not continuing association with a product believed to have unresolved safety concerns
guided by principle text: Engineer's right to disengage from situations that compromise professional values
guided by principle text: Implicit acknowledgment that further internal escalation was unlikely to succeed
guided by principle text: Professional integrity and personal ethical standards
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Departure from an employment situation where Engineer A's professional safety judgment was overridden and concerns left unaddressed
requires capability text: Judgment about the limits of internal advocacy
requires capability text: Professional self-assessment of ethical boundaries
requires capability text: Understanding of post-employment confidentiality obligations
temporal marker: Unspecified time after Company X's rejection of additional testing recommendation, at least one year before the hearing announcement
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Arguably, ongoing internal advocacy obligation, resignation ends Engineer A's ability to continue pressing for safety improvements from within the organization
violates obligation text: Some interpretations of engineering ethics suggest engineers should exhaust all internal escalation paths before disengaging
within competence: true
comment: At an unspecified point after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, Engineer A made the volitional decision to resign from employment at Company X. The case does not specify the explicit reasons for resignation, but it occurs in the context of the unresolved safety concern and the rejection of Engineer A's professional recommendation.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.284449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.284484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.284514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.284597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.284631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.284662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.285325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:31:11.283930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Safety Inconsistency Detected
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Report_Hazards
activates constraint: Professional_Competence_Obligation
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from routine testing observer to active safety concern holder; internal reporting obligation activated; tension between employer loyalty and public safety begins
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Safety_Concerns
creates obligation: Recommend_Corrective_Action
creates obligation: Report_Findings_Internally
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During or immediately after standard safety testing (pre-resignation, earliest event in timeline)
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: high
comment: Inconsistent safety performance is identified in a new consumer product during or after standard safety testing at Company X. This discovery reveals a potential hazard that standard testing protocols did not fully resolve.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Safety Inconsistency Detected (Event 1) → Recommend Additional Safety Testing (Action 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A observed inconsistent product performance following completed standard safety testing
cause: Safety Inconsistency Detected (Event 1)
counterfactual: Without detecting the safety inconsistency, Engineer A would have had no basis to recommend additional testing; the recommendation was a direct response to the observed anomaly
effect: Recommend Additional Safety Testing (Action 1)
necessary factors: Detection of inconsistent safety performance during/after standard testing
necessary factors: Engineer A's continued employment and access to product data at Company X
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional awareness and ethical obligation to act on observed anomalies
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Observed safety inconsistency + professional engineering duty + access to decision-making channels
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

State Pollution Control Authority BER 76-4
type: PollutionControlAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Public regulatory body', 'jurisdiction': 'State environmental regulation'}
caseinvolvement: Advised XYZ Corporation of permit requirements and minimum discharge standards; called a public hearing at which the corporation presented data; served as the appropriate authority to whom Engineer Doe had an obligation to report his findings upon learning of the hearing.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'notification_target', 'target': 'Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulates', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation Client BER 76-4'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Pollution Control Authority
sourcetext: the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit
textreferences: the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit
textreferences: the authority had called a public hearing
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.694981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Supervisor B Engineering Employer Representative
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'employer': 'Company X', 'authority': 'Supervisory authority over Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Supervisor B is the immediate supervisory authority to whom Engineer A reports the safety concerns and recommends additional testing; Supervisor B (as representative of Company X's management) participates in the decision to reject the additional testing recommendation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:09.072623+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'representative_of', 'target': 'Company X'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.691473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Verbally Report Findings to Client
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: consulting engineer, BER 76-4
foreseen unintended effects: Client may attempt to suppress or act on findings before written report is completed
foreseen unintended effects: Verbal-only disclosure may limit Engineer Doe's ability to demonstrate the findings were properly communicated
fulfills obligation text: Duty to inform client of material findings relevant to the engagement
fulfills obligation text: Honesty and transparency with client about professional conclusions
guided by principle text: Professional honesty and transparency
guided by principle text: Public welfare, findings related to environmental standards protecting public health
guided by principle text: Timely communication of findings to client
has agent: Engineer Doe
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Fulfill professional obligation to inform client of significant findings while the engagement was ongoing, giving the client early notice of the adverse conclusion
requires capability text: Environmental engineering analysis
requires capability text: Professional judgment about timing and form of client communications
temporal marker: After completing studies but before completing written report (BER 76-4)
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: Arguably, the decision to report only verbally without completing the written report left the findings undocumented and susceptible to suppression
within competence: true
comment: In precedent case BER 76-4, Engineer Doe chose to verbally advise XYZ Corporation of his findings, that the plant's discharge would lower water quality below established standards, before completing a written report, representing a deliberate choice about the form and timing of disclosure to the client.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.935780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Verbally Report Findings to Client (Action 5 - BER 76-4) → BER 76-4 Client Conflict Arises (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In precedent case BER 76-4, Engineer Doe's verbal report of findings to the client results in a conflict arising from the client's response to those findings
cause: Verbally Report Findings to Client (Action 5 - BER 76-4)
counterfactual: Had Engineer Doe not reported findings, the conflict may have been deferred but public safety risk would have remained; had findings been reported in writing, the conflict might have been more formally structured with clearer accountability
effect: BER 76-4 Client Conflict Arises (Event 6)
necessary factors: Divergence between Engineer Doe's professional assessment and XYZ Corporation's preferred course of action
necessary factors: Engineer Doe choosing verbal rather than written reporting, limiting formal documentation
necessary factors: Engineer Doe possessing findings material to client safety or interests
necessary factors: XYZ Corporation receiving the findings and making a decision that created conflict
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer Doe (reporting decision and method) with shared responsibility to XYZ Corporation (response to findings)
sufficient factors: Verbal disclosure of adverse findings + client's conflicting interests + absence of formal written record = conditions for client conflict
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Water_Discharge_Permit_Regulation_76-4
type: WaterDischargePermitRegulation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: State Pollution Control Authority
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Requirements
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:17.062878+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Water Discharge Permit Regulation
sourcetext: the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ Corporation was also advised of the minimum standard that must be met.
textreferences: It is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
textreferences: the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ Corporation was also advised of the minimum standard that must be met.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 76-4 analysis cited as precedent
usedincontext: Referenced within BER Case 76-4 as the regulatory framework establishing minimum environmental standards for manufacturing waste discharge into receiving bodies of water, the violation of which triggered Engineer Doe's public safety reporting obligation
version: Applicable at time of BER Case 76-4
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.693998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Whistleblower Protection Framework
type: WhistleblowerProtectionFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies and legislative frameworks
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Whistleblower Protection Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:05.369207+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Whistleblower Protection Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating the risks and ethical permissibility of hearing participation
usedincontext: Provides normative and legal grounding for Engineer A's potential participation in the public safety standards hearing as a form of public interest disclosure, including the conditions under which such participation is ethically permissible or encouraged and any protections available
version: Current professional norms and legal protections
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.690859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

XYZ Corporation Client BER 76-4
type: IndustryManufacturingProcessClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Private industrial corporation', 'context': 'Pollution discharge permit application'}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer Doe to produce a report supporting its permit application; upon receiving adverse verbal findings, terminated the contract and instructed the engineer not to produce a written report; subsequently presented data to a public hearing authority claiming discharge met minimum standards.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'regulated_by', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority BER 76-4'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer'}
rolecategory: stakeholder
roleclass: Industry Manufacturing Process Client
sourcetext: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
textreferences: the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.694843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

XYZ Corporation terminating contract (BER 76-4) before Engineer Doe learning of the public hearing (BER 76-4)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Subsequently, the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe...Thereafter, Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing
from entity text: XYZ Corporation terminating contract (BER 76-4)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer Doe learning of the public hearing (BER 76-4)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer Doe learning of the public hearing BER 7
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649437+00:00
value: Board distinguishes the current case from BER 08-10 (specific identified defect) by noting that Engineer A's concerns were general rather than demonstrative — this distinction calibrates the employer's obligation and makes inaction 'not unreasonable' rather than an ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647464+00:00
value: Board holds that absence of standards makes Company X's inaction not unreasonable, but simultaneously holds that Engineer A should bring good-faith concerns to governmental authorities — the two holdings are reconciled by distinguishing employer obligations from engineer obligations in a regulatory gap

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649536+00:00
value: The regulatory gap creates an affirmative escalation obligation that overrides residual employer loyalty, because the public has no other protective mechanism when standards do not yet exist

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647537+00:00
value: Board distinguishes the current case from BER 08-10 (specific identified defect) by noting that Engineer A's concerns were general rather than demonstrative — this distinction calibrates the employer's obligation and makes inaction 'not unreasonable' rather than an ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648464+00:00
value: Board distinguishes the current case from BER 08-10 (specific identified defect) by noting that Engineer A's concerns were general rather than demonstrative — this distinction calibrates the employer's obligation and makes inaction 'not unreasonable' rather than an ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648530+00:00
value: Board distinguishes the current case from BER 08-10 (specific identified defect) by noting that Engineer A's concerns were general rather than demonstrative — this distinction calibrates the employer's obligation and makes inaction 'not unreasonable' rather than an ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649141+00:00
value: The good faith belief threshold resolves the tension between the absence of confirmed incidents (which might suggest no reporting obligation) and the public welfare paramount obligation (which requires proactive protection) by establishing that professional judgment, not confirmed harm, is the trigger

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649385+00:00
value: Board holds that absence of standards makes Company X's inaction not unreasonable, but simultaneously holds that Engineer A should bring good-faith concerns to governmental authorities — the two holdings are reconciled by distinguishing employer obligations from engineer obligations in a regulatory gap

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648936+00:00
value: Engineer A's resignation and consideration of regulatory testimony represent the outcome of the post-rejection escalation assessment, with regulatory participation identified as the appropriate further protective action

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648188+00:00
value: Engineer A resolved the tension by resigning rather than either acquiescing silently or taking immediate external action, preserving both professional integrity and the option to contribute to regulatory proceedings later

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647246+00:00
value: Confidentiality yields to public safety disclosure obligations when the information is necessary to protect the public, but continues to constrain disclosure of proprietary information that is not necessary for the regulatory purpose

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647359+00:00
value: Board resolves the tension by holding that Engineer A may testify about general product safety concerns without disclosing Company X-specific confidential information — the confidentiality obligation constrains the form and scope of testimony but does not prohibit participation entirely

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649655+00:00
value: Public danger disclosure supersedes confidentiality when the client's active misrepresentation at a regulatory hearing creates an imminent public welfare harm that the engineer's silence would perpetuate

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648412+00:00
value: Board resolves the tension by holding that Engineer A may testify about general product safety concerns without disclosing Company X-specific confidential information — the confidentiality obligation constrains the form and scope of testimony but does not prohibit participation entirely

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648356+00:00
value: Confidentiality yields to public safety disclosure obligations when the information is necessary to protect the public, but continues to constrain disclosure of proprietary information that is not necessary for the regulatory purpose

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647663+00:00
value: The regulatory gap creates an affirmative escalation obligation that overrides residual employer loyalty, because the public has no other protective mechanism when standards do not yet exist

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648778+00:00
value: When no standards exist to guide product safety evaluation, the engineer's obligation to escalate good-faith safety concerns to governmental authorities is not diminished by the absence of standards — rather, the regulatory gap itself makes the engineer's participation in standards development more important

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648124+00:00
value: The regulatory gap creates an affirmative escalation obligation that overrides residual employer loyalty, because the public has no other protective mechanism when standards do not yet exist

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647593+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure obligation was fulfilled internally; the subsequent employer rejection created a residual obligation to consider further disclosure through regulatory channels

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648654+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure obligation was fulfilled internally; the subsequent employer rejection created a residual obligation to consider further disclosure through regulatory channels

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649487+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure obligation was fulfilled internally; the subsequent employer rejection created a residual obligation to consider further disclosure through regulatory channels

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647117+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by internal recommendation; when the employer rejected the recommendation and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the public welfare obligation became the dominant consideration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648291+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by internal recommendation; when the employer rejected the recommendation and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the public welfare obligation became the dominant consideration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647724+00:00
value: Board held that Engineer A's obligation was not discharged by the employer's inaction, but that the appropriate response was further internal escalation rather than immediate external reporting threats — the non-acquiescence obligation is real but must be pursued through graduated internal channels first

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648585+00:00
value: Board held that Engineer A's obligation was not discharged by the employer's inaction, but that the appropriate response was further internal escalation rather than immediate external reporting threats — the non-acquiescence obligation is real but must be pursued through graduated internal channels first

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649212+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by internal recommendation; when the employer rejected the recommendation and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the public welfare obligation became the dominant consideration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649587+00:00
value: Board held that Engineer A's obligation was not discharged by the employer's inaction, but that the appropriate response was further internal escalation rather than immediate external reporting threats — the non-acquiescence obligation is real but must be pursued through graduated internal channels first

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648710+00:00
value: The good faith belief threshold resolves the tension between the absence of confirmed incidents (which might suggest no reporting obligation) and the public welfare paramount obligation (which requires proactive protection) by establishing that professional judgment, not confirmed harm, is the trigger

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647852+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by internal recommendation; when the employer rejected the recommendation and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the public welfare obligation became the dominant consideration

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649263+00:00
value: Confidentiality yields to public safety disclosure obligations when the information is necessary to protect the public, but continues to constrain disclosure of proprietary information that is not necessary for the regulatory purpose

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647922+00:00
value: The post-employment testimony obligation is assessed as ethically permissible and required because the hearing is a government regulatory proceeding aimed at public protection, not an adversarial proceeding against Company X, and Engineer A's testimony serves the public rather than a competitor

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648830+00:00
value: Confidentiality yields to public safety disclosure obligations when the information is necessary to protect the public, but continues to constrain disclosure of proprietary information that is not necessary for the regulatory purpose

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649331+00:00
value: Board resolves the tension by holding that Engineer A may testify about general product safety concerns without disclosing Company X-specific confidential information — the confidentiality obligation constrains the form and scope of testimony but does not prohibit participation entirely

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647991+00:00
value: The public interest testimony obligation is assessed as overriding residual loyalty to former employer when the forum is a government regulatory proceeding aimed at establishing protective standards for the public

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649003+00:00
value: Because no existing standards address the product's unique safety profile, Engineer A's professional observations constitute some of the most important inputs available to the regulatory process — the regulatory gap makes Engineer A's participation in the standards hearing not merely permissible but professionally obligatory

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.649071+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure obligation was fulfilled internally; the subsequent employer rejection created a residual obligation to consider further disclosure through regulatory channels

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.647793+00:00
value: Public danger disclosure supersedes confidentiality when the client's active misrepresentation at a regulatory hearing creates an imminent public welfare harm that the engineer's silence would perpetuate

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648883+00:00
value: Client's authority to suppress a written report does not extend to authorizing the engineer to remain silent when the client actively misrepresents findings to a regulatory authority in a public hearing

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:38:29.648240+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides client confidentiality when the client actively misrepresents technical findings to a regulatory authority in a public health context

government agency announcing public safety standards hearing before Engineer A considering participating as a witness
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors. Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
from entity text: government agency announcing public safety standards hearing
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A considering participating as a witness
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A considering participating as a witness
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture and recommended additional testing to protect consumers who would use the new product

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A applied specialized engineering competence to identify inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture, forming a professional judgment that the new product raised unique safety concerns warra

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: When Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce in the rejection as a professional endorsement of safety adequacy, ultimately resigning from the co

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After Company X rejected Engineer A's safety testing recommendation, Engineer A was required to critically assess whether the employer's refusal — combined with the nature, probability, and severity of the identified consumer safety risk —

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively communicated identified safety concerns to Supervisor B without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize, fulfilling the obligation to disclose risks to relevant parties before consumers are exposed to t

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A acted as a faithful agent to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety testing recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B, rather than immediately escalat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The absence of governmental or industry standards for Company X's new consumer product creates a regulatory gap that heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional responsibility to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmen

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional obligation to escalate safety concerns through available channels, including regulator

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's general good-faith belief that Company X's product raises unique safety concerns — even without confirmed incidents, specific demonstrative findings, or applicable regulatory standards — is sufficient to trigger an obligation t

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: One year after resignation, Engineer A considers participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing to ensure that regulatory authorities have the benefit of Engineer A's professional observations about the product

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's decision to participate in the government public safety standards hearing is grounded in the paramount obligation to protect public welfare by contributing specialized technical knowledge to the standards-development process fo

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board conditions Engineer A's permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing on the requirement that Engineer A testify in an objective and truthful manner — objectivity is a prerequisite to ethically permissible p

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional obligation to share safety observations about the new consumer product at the government standards hearing survives resignation from Company X, because the public safety duty is status-based rather than employment-

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product that is directly relevant to the government safety standards hearing, creating an obligation to participate as a witness and provide truthful, obje

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's post-employment participation in the government safety standards hearing is conditioned on not disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate applicable confidentiality agreements — confidentiality

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's post-employment testimony at the government safety standards hearing must be calibrated to avoid disclosure of Company X's proprietary product information beyond what is necessary to serve the public safety purpose of the heari

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A at MedTech identified a specific relief valve placement defect and recommended corrective action; when the manager failed to act for a month and hundreds of units were on the market, Engineer A's professional obligation required

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Doe, having verbally advised XYZ Corporation of findings that discharge would violate environmental standards, learned of a public hearing at which the corporation presented contrary data — the Board held Engineer Doe had an ethica

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract and instructed him not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings — the Board found this created an obligation for Engineer Doe to report findings to the regulatory

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Doe's confidentiality obligation to XYZ Corporation did not bar him from reporting his technical findings to the State Pollution Control Authority when the corporation was actively misrepresenting those findings at a public hearing

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's employment relationship with Company X creates a duty of loyalty that must be weighed against the public welfare obligation when deciding whether to recommend additional testing and whether to testify at the regulatory hearing

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing in response to Engineer A's general concerns about inconsistent product performance — in the absence of applicable governmental or industry standa

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A proactively communicated identified safety concerns to Supervisor B without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize, fulfilling the obligation to disclose risks to relevant parties before consumers are exposed to t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture and recommended additional testing to protect consumers who would use the new product

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A acted as a faithful agent to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety testing recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B, rather than immediately escalat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: When Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce in the rejection as a professional endorsement of safety adequacy, ultimately resigning from the co

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After Company X rejected Engineer A's safety testing recommendation, Engineer A was required to critically assess whether the employer's refusal — combined with the nature, probability, and severity of the identified consumer safety risk —

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After Company X rejected Engineer A's safety testing recommendation, Engineer A was required to critically assess whether the employer's refusal — combined with the nature, probability, and severity of the identified consumer safety risk —

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: When Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce in the rejection as a professional endorsement of safety adequacy, ultimately resigning from the co

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional obligation to escalate safety concerns through available channels, including regulator

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The absence of governmental or industry standards for Company X's new consumer product creates a regulatory gap that heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional responsibility to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmen

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture and recommended additional testing to protect consumers who would use the new product

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's general good-faith belief that Company X's product raises unique safety concerns — even without confirmed incidents, specific demonstrative findings, or applicable regulatory standards — is sufficient to trigger an obligation t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's general good-faith belief that Company X's product raises unique safety concerns — even without confirmed incidents, specific demonstrative findings, or applicable regulatory standards — is sufficient to trigger an obligation t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A identified inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture and recommended additional testing to protect consumers who would use the new product

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional obligation to share safety observations about the new consumer product at the government standards hearing survives resignation from Company X, because the public safety duty is status-based rather than employment-

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: One year after resignation, Engineer A considers participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing to ensure that regulatory authorities have the benefit of Engineer A's professional observations about the product

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's decision to participate in the government public safety standards hearing is grounded in the paramount obligation to protect public welfare by contributing specialized technical knowledge to the standards-development process fo

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product that is directly relevant to the government safety standards hearing, creating an obligation to participate as a witness and provide truthful, obje

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's decision to participate in the government public safety standards hearing is grounded in the paramount obligation to protect public welfare by contributing specialized technical knowledge to the standards-development process fo

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's post-employment participation in the government safety standards hearing is conditioned on not disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate applicable confidentiality agreements — confidentiality

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's post-employment testimony at the government safety standards hearing must be calibrated to avoid disclosure of Company X's proprietary product information beyond what is necessary to serve the public safety purpose of the heari

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated, as a condition of permissible participation in the government public safety standards hearing, to refrain from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate any confidentiality agreemen

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's post-employment testimony at the government safety standards hearing must be calibrated to avoid disclosure of Company X's proprietary product information beyond what is necessary to serve the public safety purpose of the heari

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's general good-faith belief that Company X's product raises unique safety concerns — even without confirmed incidents, specific demonstrative findings, or applicable regulatory standards — is sufficient to trigger an obligation t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A at MedTech identified a specific relief valve placement defect and recommended corrective action; when the manager failed to act for a month and hundreds of units were on the market, Engineer A's professional obligation required

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Doe, having verbally advised XYZ Corporation of findings that discharge would violate environmental standards, learned of a public hearing at which the corporation presented contrary data — the Board held Engineer Doe had an ethica

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract and instructed him not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings — the Board found this created an obligation for Engineer Doe to report findings to the regulatory

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Doe's confidentiality obligation to XYZ Corporation did not bar him from reporting his technical findings to the State Pollution Control Authority when the corporation was actively misrepresenting those findings at a public hearing

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: When Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce in the rejection as a professional endorsement of safety adequacy, ultimately resigning from the co

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing in response to Engineer A's general concerns about inconsistent product performance — in the absence of applicable governmental or industry standa

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to proactively communicate identified safety concerns — specifically the observed inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns — to Supervisor B without waiting for formal requests or for h

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the scope and form of the public safety reporting obligation to the general, non-demonstrative nature of the identified safety concern — recognizing that general concerns about inconsistent product perf

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A is obligated to participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing covering the product category for which Engineer A identified unique safety concerns, sharing saf

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product that is directly relevant to the government safety standards hearing, and is obligated to bring those concerns forward at the hearing to ensure tha

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated, as a condition of permissible participation in the government public safety standards hearing, to refrain from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate any confidentiality agreemen

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A at MedTech was obligated to refrain from threatening external regulatory reporting to the manager as a coercive tactic before exhausting internal escalation channels, recognizing that such a premature threat was ethically impermi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer Doe was obligated, upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented data at the public hearing contradicting his adverse verbal findings about discharge standards, to report his technical findings to the State Pollution Control Aut

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Company X was obligated to refrain from rejecting Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing solely on cost and schedule grounds when the recommendation was grounded in an engineer's professional identification of unique safe

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and the Board of Ethical Review were obligated to recognize that Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing — in response to Engineer A's general concerns about inconsistent perf

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional obligation to escalate safety concerns through available channels, including regulator

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Company X's completion of standard safety testing — and the product's demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters — did not preclude or extinguish the obligation to report the additio

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to bring good faith safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities was not precluded by the fact that Company X had completed standard safety testing,

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, after Company X declined to pursue additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified safety concerns — even though general and non-dem

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to bring safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product to appropriate governmental authorities was heightened — not diminished — by the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards for the produc

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After Company X rejected the recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the identified safety concerns required escalation beyond the employer relationship to approp

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent obligation to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety testing recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B, before the employ

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A participates as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, Engineer A is obligated to calibrate testimony to share safety-relevant observations and professional judgments without disclosing Company X's propri

standard safety testing before Engineer A observing inconsistent performance issues
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues
from entity text: standard safety testing
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A observing inconsistent performance issues
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A observing inconsistent performance issu
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.936309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

standard safety testing completion before Engineer A's resignation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed)...Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X.
from entity text: standard safety testing completion
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A's resignation
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A s resignation
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.937060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER 08-10 Internal Escalation Pathway Assessment for MedTech Respirator
type: InternalEscalationPathwayExhaustionAssessmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's second approach to the manager through the Board's determination that internal mechanisms should have been explored first
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: MedTech design team
affectedparties: MedTech management
affectedparties: Regulatory agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken
stateclass: Internal Escalation Pathway Exhaustion Assessment State
subject: Engineer A's escalation options within MedTech after manager non-response
terminatedby: Board determination that Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms before threatening external reporting
textreferences: Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue
textreferences: Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns
textreferences: it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken
textreferences: only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action
triggeringevent: Manager indicated the matter was 'still being looked into' after one month of inaction, prompting Engineer A to threaten external reporting
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.696549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

BER 76-4 Client-Suppressed Environmental Findings at Public Hearing
type: Client-SuppressedFindingsatPublicHearingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From XYZ Corporation's termination of Engineer Doe's contract through the public hearing at which XYZ presented contradictory data
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: State Pollution Control Authority
affectedparties: XYZ Corporation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
stateclass: Client-Suppressed Findings at Public Hearing State
subject: Engineer Doe's relationship with XYZ Corporation and the State Pollution Control Authority
terminatedby: Engineer Doe's ethical obligation to report findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
textreferences: Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
textreferences: Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
triggeringevent: XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract, instructed him not to render a written report, and then presented data to the authority contradicting his findings
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.693182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Cost-Driven Rejection of Additional Safety Testing
type: ClientSafetyRecommendationRejectionWithoutStandardsBasisState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Company X's rejection of Engineer A's recommendation through Engineer A's resignation and the subsequent standards hearing announcement
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Consumers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Supervisor B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
stateclass: Client Safety Recommendation Rejection Without Standards Basis State
subject: Company X's rejection of Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing
terminatedby: Not formally resolved within the facts; Engineer A resigns and the government agency later initiates a standards hearing
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
triggeringevent: Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing citing potential cost and delay
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.692282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer
type: ConsumerProductSafetyDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked BER 08-10 MedTech
has obligation: Engineer A MedTech BER 08-10 Premature External Reporting Threat
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Medical equipment engineering (not a respirator expert)', 'employer': 'MedTech'}
caseinvolvement: Employed by MedTech; asked by colleague Engineer B to evaluate an infant respirator; identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement; reported concern to a non-engineer manager; followed up when no action was taken; threatened to report to a federal regulatory agency; the Board found the threat premature and that internal escalation should have been exhausted first.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'MedTech Non-Engineer Manager BER 08-10'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech
textreferences: Engineer A indicated that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem, he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency
textreferences: Engineer A, although not an expert on respirators, determined that a relief valve intended to protect against overpressure being applied to the infant's lungs may have been incorrectly placed
textreferences: Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.695121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Status
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's resignation onward
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with Company X
terminatedby: Not terminated within the facts presented
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
triggeringevent: Engineer A resigns from Company X
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.692461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Witness Participation Consideration
type: Post-EmploymentSafetyConcernWitnessParticipationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the government agency's announcement of the public safety standard hearing through Engineer A's decision about participation
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Competing companies
affectedparties: Consumers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Relevant government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
stateclass: Post-Employment Safety Concern Witness Participation State
subject: Engineer A's consideration of participating as a witness at the government agency's public safety standards hearing
terminatedby: Engineer A's decision to participate or not participate; conclusion of the hearing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
triggeringevent: Government agency announces public safety standard hearing one year after Engineer A's resignation; Engineer A considers participating as a witness
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.692653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Loyalty Invoked By Company X Employer Relationship
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's post-employment testimony decision
appliedto: Engineer A's safety testing recommendation
balancingwith: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's employment relationship with Company X creates a duty of loyalty that must be weighed against the public welfare obligation when deciding whether to recommend additional testing and whether to testify at the regulatory hearing
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The loyalty obligation to Company X is a legitimate but subordinate consideration — it does not prevent Engineer A from making safety recommendations internally, and does not bar post-employment testimony at a government regulatory hearing, though it may constrain the scope of proprietary information Engineer A discloses
invokedby: Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
tensionresolution: Loyalty yields to public welfare when the conflict is between commercial interests and consumer safety, but continues to constrain the scope of proprietary disclosure in post-employment testimony
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.698858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked Engineer A Current Case Standards Hearing Testimony
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board conditions Engineer A's permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing on the requirement that Engineer A testify in an objective and truthful manner — objectivity is a prerequisite to ethically permissible post-employment testimony
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in testimony requires that Engineer A present technical findings and professional judgments without bias toward former employer interests, personal grievances, or advocacy positions — the testimony must be grounded in professional assessment
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
tensionresolution: Objectivity is not in tension with post-employment testimony but is a condition of its ethical permissibility — subjective or advocacy-driven testimony would convert permissible public interest participation into an ethical violation
textreferences: Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.930064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Present Case Competing Duties Between Confidentiality and Public Safety Reporting
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's resignation through the Board's determination of permissibility conditions for hearing participation
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public safety standards body
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's tension between confidentiality obligations to Company X and public safety reporting obligations
terminatedby: Board's three-condition framework establishing how both obligations can be simultaneously honored
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities
triggeringevent: Engineer A was asked to testify at a public safety standards hearing on matters related to Company X's product, while remaining bound by confidentiality obligations from prior employment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.697636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Present Case Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Company X Novel Product
type: RegulatoryStandardsVacuumforNovelProductState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From product development through the public safety standards hearing
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Consumers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Industry
affectedparties: Public safety standards body
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
stateclass: Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Novel Product State
subject: Absence of applicable governmental or industry safety standards for Company X's new product
terminatedby: Potentially resolved by the public safety standards hearing at which Engineer A is asked to participate
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: Engineer A, who has since resigned from Company X, has been asked to participate as a witness at a public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
triggeringevent: Company X developed a new product for which no governmental or industry-specific safety standards existed, leaving safety determination entirely to professional judgment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.697260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Professional Competence In Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A Safety Observation
type: ProfessionalCompetenceinRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: New consumer product safety evaluation
appliedto: Standard safety testing adequacy assessment
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A applied specialized engineering competence to identify inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture, forming a professional judgment that the new product raised unique safety concerns warranting additional investigation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's professional competence in product safety engineering creates both the capacity and the obligation to identify risks that formal testing protocols may miss, and to act on that identification through recommendations and regulatory participation
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
principleclass: Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
tensionresolution: Professional competence-based safety judgment is not overridden by employer rejection — the engineer's professional assessment remains valid regardless of the employer's commercial decision
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.699185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk from Unresolved Consumer Product Concern
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of safety concerns through the standards hearing process
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Consumers of the new product
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Consumers and general public potentially exposed to safety risks from the new consumer product given unresolved performance inconsistencies
terminatedby: Adoption of applicable safety standards; additional testing resolving the concern; product withdrawal
textreferences: Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
triggeringevent: Engineer A's observation of inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns not addressed by completed testing or existing standards
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.692986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case
type: Safety-RejectingManufacturingEmployer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context Invoked Company X Current Case
adheres to principle: Loyalty Invoked By Company X Employer Relationship
has obligation: Company X Employer Reasonableness Recognition Absent Standards Context
has obligation: Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Violation
attributes: {'type': 'Private product manufacturer', 'context': 'New consumer product without existing standards'}
caseinvolvement: Private manufacturer that developed a new consumer product; received Engineer A's safety concerns regarding inconsistent performance; declined to pursue additional internal testing given absence of governmental or industry standards; subject to Engineer A's subsequent public safety standards hearing testimony.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: stakeholder
roleclass: Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer
sourcetext: it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
textreferences: it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.695679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Contextual Calibration General vs Specific Safety Concern
type: EngineerACurrentCaseContextualCalibrationGeneralVsSpecificSafetyConcern
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Present Case Company X Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation
casecontext: Engineer A expressed general product safety concerns to Company X due to inconsistent performance, not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern. The Board distinguished this from the MedTech case involving a specific, identifiable relief valve placement defect, calibrating the reporting obligation accordingly.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting Invoked Current Case
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Company X, current case)
obligationclass: Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the scope and form of the public safety reporting obligation to the general, non-demonstrative nature of the identified safety concern — recognizing that general concerns about inconsistent product performance without confirmed incidents or specific defects trigger a more limited obligation to bring concerns to regulatory attention through appropriate channels, rather than the stronger immediate external reporting obligation triggered by clear, demonstrable defects.
sourcetext: it appears that Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of employment and post-employment consideration of hearing participation
textreferences: Engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation reaches in recommending corrective action.
textreferences: There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
textreferences: it appears that Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.931603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Safety Recommendation to Supervisor B
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosureInvokedByEngineerASafetyRecommendation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A observed inconsistent product performance issues during and after Company X's standard safety testing process and recommended additional testing to Supervisor B.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Safety Recommendation
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Safety Concern Identification
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Safety Recommendation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to proactively communicate identified safety concerns — specifically the observed inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns — to Supervisor B without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize, fulfilling the faithful agent duty while also acting in the public interest.
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
temporalscope: Upon identification of the inconsistent product performance issues, during the employment period at Company X.
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.700165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Gap Escalation Recognition
type: RegulatoryGapHeightenedSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Novel Consumer Product Regulatory Standards Vacuum
casecontext: No national product safety standards yet address the new consumer product or its potential impact on consumer safety; the government hearing represents the regulatory body's effort to develop such standards.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In New Product Context
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to recognize that the absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes the professional obligation to share safety concerns with the government regulatory body conducting the public safety standards hearing, because the regulatory gap means Engineer A's specialized knowledge may be the only available mechanism for informing public safety decision-making in this domain.
sourcetext: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety.
temporalscope: Upon announcement of the government public safety standards hearing and throughout the decision-making process about participation.
textreferences: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety.
textreferences: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures.
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.700765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Residual Safety Concern Post-Testing
type: CompletedSafetyTestingwithResidualConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's observation of inconsistent performance issues during/after standard safety testing through Engineer A's resignation and beyond
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Consumers of the new product
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Supervisor B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
stateclass: Completed Safety Testing with Residual Concern State
subject: Engineer A's professional assessment of the new consumer product's safety
terminatedby: Not terminated within the facts presented; concern persists through the standards hearing consideration
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
triggeringevent: Engineer A observes inconsistent product performance issues that in their opinion raise unique safety concerns after standard safety testing is completed
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.691936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Standard Testing Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Reporting
type: StandardSafetyTestingCompletionNon-PreclusionofAdditionalSafetyConcernReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Residual Safety Concern Post-Testing
casecontext: Company X completed standard safety testing demonstrating the product was within acceptable safety parameters; Engineer A nonetheless identified inconsistent performance issues raising unique safety concerns beyond the scope of the completed testing.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting Invoked Current Case
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Standard Safety Testing Completion Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Company X's completion of standard safety testing — and the product's demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters — did not preclude or extinguish the obligation to report the additional, unique safety concerns that the standard testing did not capture, specifically the inconsistent product performance issues identified through Engineer A's specialized engineering competence.
sourcetext: During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
temporalscope: During and following the completion of Company X's standard safety testing process.
textreferences: During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.700920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer
type: ClientSuppressingEngineeringReport
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Report Suppression Prohibition Invoked BER 76-4
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Invoked BER 76-4
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 76-4 Engineer Doe Pollution Reporting
has obligation: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Termination Public Hearing Reporting
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental/pollution control consulting'}
caseinvolvement: Performed consulting engineering services for XYZ Corporation to evaluate whether plant discharge met environmental standards; concluded discharge would lower water quality below established standards; verbally advised client of findings; was terminated and instructed not to produce a written report; subsequently learned of a public hearing where the corporation presented contrary data, triggering his obligation to report findings to the authority.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Client Suppressing Engineering Report
sourcetext: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report
textreferences: Engineer Doe concluded that the plant's discharge would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
textreferences: Engineer Doe verbally advised the XYZ Corporation of his findings
textreferences: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.694627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Novel Consumer Product Regulatory Standards Vacuum
type: RegulatoryStandardsVacuumforNovelProductState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From product development through the announcement of the government agency's public safety standard hearing; partially resolved by the hearing announcement
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Competing companies developing similar products
affectedparties: Consumers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Relevant government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:36.599466+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
stateclass: Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Novel Product State
subject: The new consumer product developed by Company X and its regulatory environment
terminatedby: Government agency announces public safety standard hearing — standards development process initiated but not yet concluded
textreferences: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
textreferences: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures
textreferences: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
triggeringevent: Development of a new consumer product for which no national, governmental, or industry-specific safety standards exist
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.692105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Post-Employment Testimony Consideration
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government public safety standards hearing
appliedto: New consumer product category regulatory standard-setting
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: One year after resignation, Engineer A considers participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing to ensure that regulatory authorities have the benefit of Engineer A's professional observations about the product's safety concerns
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public welfare obligation persists after employment ends — Engineer A's professional knowledge of safety concerns about the product category is precisely the kind of information that the regulatory hearing process needs to establish adequate protective standards
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
tensionresolution: Post-employment public welfare obligation to contribute safety knowledge to regulatory process is assessed as overriding any residual loyalty to former employer, subject to constraints on disclosure of genuinely proprietary information
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.698090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Client Report Suppression Prohibition Invoked BER 76-4
type: ClientReportSuppressionProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority BER 76-4
appliedto: XYZ Corporation Client BER 76-4
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract and instructed him not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings — the Board found this created an obligation for Engineer Doe to report findings to the regulatory authority when he learned of the public hearing
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The client's instruction to suppress a written report containing findings material to public health and safety does not discharge the engineer's obligation — when the client then presents contrary data to a regulatory authority, the suppression instruction is overridden by the public welfare obligation
invokedby: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Client Report Suppression Prohibition
sourcetext: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation. Thereafter, Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards.
tensionresolution: Client's authority to suppress a written report does not extend to authorizing the engineer to remain silent when the client actively misrepresents findings to a regulatory authority in a public hearing
textreferences: Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
textreferences: Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards
textreferences: the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.929913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Proprietary Information Boundary in Hearing Testimony
type: Post-EmploymentProprietaryInformationBoundaryinPublicTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Present Case Competing Duties Between Confidentiality and Public Safety Reporting
casecontext: Engineer A's potential testimony at the government hearing must balance the public welfare obligation to share safety knowledge against the continuing confidentiality obligation owed to former employer Company X.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Confidentiality Invoked In Post-Employment Testimony Context
derived from principle: Confidentiality Principle Invoked Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Testimony Constraint
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary in Public Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: If Engineer A participates as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, Engineer A is obligated to calibrate testimony to share safety-relevant observations and professional judgments without disclosing Company X's proprietary technical processes, trade secrets, or confidential business information, drawing a principled distinction between safety observations (disclosable) and proprietary technical details (protected).
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
temporalscope: During and in preparation for participation in the government public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A resigns from Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.700602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
type: Post-EmploymentPublicSafetyTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government public safety standards hearing
appliedto: New consumer product category
balancingwith: Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
balancingwith: Confidentiality
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional obligation to share safety observations about the new consumer product at the government standards hearing survives resignation from Company X, because the public safety duty is status-based rather than employment-based
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A not only may but should participate in the standards hearing, providing truthful and objective testimony about observed inconsistent performance issues, while exercising judgment about what proprietary information is necessary to disclose versus what can be withheld consistent with public safety goals
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
tensionresolution: The post-employment testimony obligation is assessed as ethically permissible and required because the hearing is a government regulatory proceeding aimed at public protection, not an adversarial proceeding against Company X, and Engineer A's testimony serves the public rather than a competitor
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A resigns from Company X
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.698248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Hearing Participation
type: PublicInterestEngineeringTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government public safety standards hearing
appliedto: New consumer product category safety standards development
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product that is directly relevant to the government safety standards hearing, creating an obligation to participate as a witness and provide truthful, objective testimony to inform the regulatory standard-setting process
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The regulatory hearing is precisely the forum in which Engineer A's professional observations about inconsistent product performance and unique safety concerns should be heard — participation serves the public interest and is grounded in Engineer A's established professional assessment
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
sourcetext: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
tensionresolution: The public interest testimony obligation is assessed as overriding residual loyalty to former employer when the forum is a government regulatory proceeding aimed at establishing protective standards for the public
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.699336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 76-4 Engineer Doe Pollution Reporting
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority BER 76-4
appliedto: XYZ Corporation Client BER 76-4
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Doe, having verbally advised XYZ Corporation of findings that discharge would violate environmental standards, learned of a public hearing at which the corporation presented contrary data — the Board held Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority, because his duty to the public was paramount
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When a client suppresses findings and presents contrary data to a regulatory authority, the engineer's paramount duty to the public requires reporting confirmed technical findings to the authority, overriding client confidentiality and loyalty obligations
invokedby: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount. In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: Board held that public welfare paramount overrides client confidentiality when the client actively misrepresents technical findings to a regulatory authority in a public health context
textreferences: In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
textreferences: The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount
textreferences: in concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.929733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Invoked BER 76-4
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Pollution Control Authority BER 76-4
appliedto: XYZ Corporation Client BER 76-4
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer Doe's confidentiality obligation to XYZ Corporation did not bar him from reporting his technical findings to the State Pollution Control Authority when the corporation was actively misrepresenting those findings at a public hearing, because the disclosure served the public welfare purpose of the ethics code
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Confidentiality obligations that protect client technical processes and business affairs do not bar disclosure to regulatory authorities when the client is actively misrepresenting findings that are material to public health and safety determinations
invokedby: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
tensionresolution: Public danger disclosure supersedes confidentiality when the client's active misrepresentation at a regulatory hearing creates an imminent public welfare harm that the engineer's silence would perpetuate
textreferences: Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
textreferences: The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount
textreferences: a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.930219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Present Case Company X Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernWithoutDemonstrableViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's observation of inconsistent product performance through Engineer A's resignation and consideration of hearing participation
affectedparties: Company X
affectedparties: Consumers of the product
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public safety standards body
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:08.453937+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
stateclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation State
subject: Engineer A's safety concerns about Company X's new product based on performance inconsistencies
terminatedby: Not resolved — Engineer A resigned and is considering participation in public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
triggeringevent: Engineer A observed inconsistent performance by Company X's new product and formed a professional judgment that unique safety concerns may require additional study, in the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.696731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Current Case Testimony Decision
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Consumer product safety standards development
appliedto: Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's decision to participate in the government public safety standards hearing is grounded in the paramount obligation to protect public welfare by contributing specialized technical knowledge to the standards-development process for a product category with no existing regulatory guidance
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires that engineers with relevant technical knowledge participate in governmental safety standards processes, even post-employment, when they hold good-faith beliefs about product safety concerns affecting consumers
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
tensionresolution: Board held that participation is permissible provided competence, objectivity, and confidentiality conditions are met — public welfare obligation is not absolute but is conditioned on these constraints
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.929252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A MedTech BER 08-10 Premature External Reporting Threat
type: PrematureExternalReportingThreatProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence After Company X Rejection
defeasible under: BER 08-10 Internal Escalation Pathway Assessment for MedTech Respirator
casecontext: Engineer A told the MedTech manager that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the infant respirator relief valve problem, Engineer A would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency. The Board found this threat ethically impermissible because internal escalation channels had not been exhausted.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked BER 08-10 MedTech
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (MedTech, BER 08-10)
obligationclass: Premature External Reporting Threat Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A at MedTech was obligated to refrain from threatening external regulatory reporting to the manager as a coercive tactic before exhausting internal escalation channels, recognizing that such a premature threat was ethically impermissible even though the underlying safety concern about the infant respirator relief valve was legitimate.
sourcetext: The Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A issued the external reporting threat to the non-engineer manager
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.931013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked BER 08-10 MedTech
type: Non-AcquiescencetoEmployerSafetyTestingRejection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10
balancingwith: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A at MedTech identified a specific relief valve placement defect and recommended corrective action; when the manager failed to act for a month and hundreds of units were on the market, Engineer A's professional obligation required further escalation beyond the initial report
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The employer's failure to act on a specific, identified safety concern does not discharge the engineer's obligation — the engineer must continue escalating internally before threatening external reporting
invokedby: Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection
sourcetext: it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
tensionresolution: Board held that Engineer A's obligation was not discharged by the employer's inaction, but that the appropriate response was further internal escalation rather than immediate external reporting threats — the non-acquiescence obligation is real but must be pursued through graduated internal channels first
textreferences: Engineer A again urged the manager to take immediate action
textreferences: When the manager indicated that the matter was still being looked into by a design team, Engineer A indicated that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem, he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency
textreferences: it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.929574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A After Company X Rejection
type: Post-Client-RefusalEscalationAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X rejection of additional safety testing
appliedto: Engineer A's resignation and subsequent regulatory participation decision
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After Company X rejected Engineer A's safety testing recommendation, Engineer A was required to critically assess whether the employer's refusal — combined with the nature, probability, and severity of the identified consumer safety risk — triggered an obligation to escalate concerns to regulatory authorities or take other protective action
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The employer's rejection of the safety recommendation did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation — it triggered a further assessment obligation that Engineer A appears to have resolved through resignation and subsequent consideration of regulatory testimony
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
principleclass: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
tensionresolution: Engineer A's resignation and consideration of regulatory testimony represent the outcome of the post-rejection escalation assessment, with regulatory participation identified as the appropriate further protective action
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.699814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In Current Case
type: RegulatoryGapSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case
appliedto: Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
balancingwith: Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The absence of governmental or industry standards for Company X's new consumer product creates a regulatory gap that heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional responsibility to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmental authorities for further review and investigation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When no standards exist to guide product safety evaluation, the engineer's obligation to escalate good-faith safety concerns to governmental authorities is not diminished by the absence of standards — rather, the regulatory gap itself makes the engineer's participation in standards development more important
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
tensionresolution: Board holds that absence of standards makes Company X's inaction not unreasonable, but simultaneously holds that Engineer A should bring good-faith concerns to governmental authorities — the two holdings are reconciled by distinguishing employer obligations from engineer obligations in a regulatory gap
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.929409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context Invoked Company X Current Case
type: EmployerReasonablenessinAbsent-StandardsContext
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing in response to Engineer A's general concerns about inconsistent product performance — in the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards — was found by the Board to be not unreasonable
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The absence of applicable standards, combined with the general (non-specific, non-demonstrative) nature of Engineer A's safety concerns, calibrates the employer's obligation downward — the employer is not required to pursue unlimited additional testing in response to general concerns when no regulatory guidance exists
invokedby: Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case
principleclass: Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
tensionresolution: Board distinguishes the current case from BER 08-10 (specific identified defect) by noting that Engineer A's concerns were general rather than demonstrative — this distinction calibrates the employer's obligation and makes inaction 'not unreasonable' rather than an ethical violation
textreferences: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.930867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Standard Safety Testing Non-Preclusion Additional Concern Reporting
type: StandardSafetyTestingCompletionNon-PreclusionofAdditionalSafetyConcernReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation Fulfillment
defeasible under: Engineer A Residual Safety Concern Post-Testing
casecontext: Company X completed standard safety testing of the new consumer product. Engineer A believed the product raised unique safety concerns not captured by the completed standard testing due to inconsistent performance. The Board found Engineer A could permissibly participate in the public safety standards hearing to bring these concerns to regulatory attention.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting Invoked Current Case
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Safety Concern Identification
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Company X, current case)
obligationclass: Standard Safety Testing Completion Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's obligation to bring good faith safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities was not precluded by the fact that Company X had completed standard safety testing, recognizing that the completion of standard testing does not extinguish the obligation to report additional unique safety concerns that the standard testing did not capture.
sourcetext: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis, and he advised Company X of this fact.
temporalscope: After Company X completed standard safety testing and declined additional testing, through the post-employment period
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis, and he advised Company X of this fact.
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.932168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Public Interest Testimony Obligation at Government Hearing
type: PublicInterestEngineeringTestimonyObligationInvokedByEngineerAHearingParticipation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
prevails over: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
casecontext: The government agency announced a public safety standards hearing covering the product category for which Engineer A identified unique safety concerns during employment at Company X.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Hearing Participation
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Current Case Testimony Decision
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Hearing Participation
obligationstatement: Engineer A possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product that is directly relevant to the government safety standards hearing, and is obligated to bring those concerns forward at the hearing to ensure that the regulatory body has complete and accurate technical information for its standards-setting decision.
sourcetext: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
temporalscope: Upon announcement of the government public safety standards hearing and during the hearing itself.
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.701970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked By Engineer A Internal Recommendation
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X product development process
appliedto: Internal safety testing recommendation to Supervisor B
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A acted as a faithful agent to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety testing recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B, rather than immediately escalating externally
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent obligation by first pursuing internal resolution through proper channels before considering external action — the recommendation to Supervisor B represents the appropriate first step in the escalation sequence
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by internal recommendation; when the employer rejected the recommendation and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the public welfare obligation became the dominant consideration
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.699479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Safety Recommendation
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: New consumer product risk identification
appliedto: Safety concern communication to Supervisor B
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A proactively communicated identified safety concerns to Supervisor B without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize, fulfilling the obligation to disclose risks to relevant parties before consumers are exposed to the potentially unsafe product
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Proactive risk disclosure required Engineer A to surface the inconsistent performance observations and recommend additional testing even though standard testing had been completed and deemed adequate — the engineer's independent professional judgment triggered the disclosure obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
tensionresolution: Proactive disclosure obligation was fulfilled internally; the subsequent employer rejection created a residual obligation to consider further disclosure through regulatory channels
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.699639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Safety Concern Identification
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X product development process
appliedto: New consumer product safety testing decision
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A identified inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture and recommended additional testing to protect consumers who would use the new product
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare requires Engineer A to act on professional observations of safety concerns even when standard testing has been completed and deemed adequate by the employer, because the engineer's specialized judgment identifies risks that formal testing protocols did not address
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
tensionresolution: Engineer A prioritized public welfare by making the recommendation despite cost and schedule implications to Company X, and ultimately resigned rather than acquiesce in the unaddressed safety concern
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.697926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In New Product Context
type: RegulatoryGapSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government public safety standards hearing
appliedto: New consumer product safety concerns
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional obligation to escalate safety concerns through available channels, including regulatory participation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Because no existing standards address the product's unique safety profile, Engineer A's professional observations constitute some of the most important inputs available to the regulatory process — the regulatory gap makes Engineer A's participation in the standards hearing not merely permissible but professionally obligatory
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation
sourcetext: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
tensionresolution: The regulatory gap creates an affirmative escalation obligation that overrides residual employer loyalty, because the public has no other protective mechanism when standards do not yet exist
textreferences: Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
textreferences: Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.698433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Confidentiality Principle Invoked Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Testimony Constraint
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case
appliedto: Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
balancingwith: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's post-employment participation in the government safety standards hearing is conditioned on not disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate applicable confidentiality agreements — confidentiality obligations survive the employment relationship
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Confidentiality agreements with former employers remain binding post-employment and constrain the scope of permissible testimony at governmental hearings, requiring the engineer to testify about general product category safety concerns without disclosing Company X-specific confidential information
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
tensionresolution: Board resolves the tension by holding that Engineer A may testify about general product safety concerns without disclosing Company X-specific confidential information — the confidentiality obligation constrains the form and scope of testimony but does not prohibit participation entirely
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as... (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.930392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Employer Cost Rejection Non-Acquiescence Assessment
type: EmployerCost-RejectionNon-AcquiescenceSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Company X Employer Reasonableness Recognition Absent Standards Context
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Employment Status
prevails over: Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Violation
casecontext: Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing. Engineer A continued to believe the product raised unique safety concerns. One year after resignation, Engineer A considered participating in the government public safety standards hearing. The Board found this participation permissible and consistent with the obligation to bring good faith safety concerns to regulatory attention.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked By Engineer A Resignation
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A After Company X Rejection
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Company X, current case)
obligationclass: Employer Cost-Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, after Company X declined to pursue additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified safety concerns — even though general and non-demonstrative — required escalation beyond the employer relationship to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to pursue that escalation through the government public safety standards hearing.
sourcetext: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis, and he advised Company X of this fact.
temporalscope: After Company X's rejection of additional testing recommendation, through the post-employment period and hearing participation decision
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis, and he advised Company X of this fact.
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.932474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation
type: RegulatoryGapHeightenedSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Company X Employer Reasonableness Recognition Absent Standards Context
defeasible under: Present Case Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Company X Novel Product
prevails over: Company X Employer Reasonableness Recognition Absent Standards Context
casecontext: No governmental or industry standards existed to guide Company X's safety testing decisions for the new consumer product. The government announced a public safety standards hearing covering new consumer products. Engineer A's participation in the hearing as a witness with good faith safety concerns was found permissible by the Board.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Safety Concern Identification
derived from principle: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In Current Case
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Company X, current case)
obligationclass: Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's obligation to bring safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product to appropriate governmental authorities was heightened — not diminished — by the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards for the product, recognizing that the regulatory gap means Engineer A's specialized knowledge may be the primary mechanism for informing public safety decision-making in this domain through the government standards hearing.
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of safety concern identification and post-employment hearing participation consideration
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.932310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Consideration
type: Post-EmploymentPublicSafetyTestimonyParticipationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
prevails over: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
casecontext: One year after resignation, the relevant government agency announced a public safety standards hearing covering new consumer products including Company X's product; Engineer A is considering participating as a witness.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Post-Employment Testimony Consideration
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Current Case Testimony Decision
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Participation Obligation
obligationstatement: One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A is obligated to participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing covering the product category for which Engineer A identified unique safety concerns, sharing safety observations in a manner that informs regulatory decision-making without disclosing Company X's proprietary or confidential information.
sourcetext: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
temporalscope: Upon announcement of the government public safety standards hearing, one year after Engineer A's resignation from Company X.
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
textreferences: One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.700464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked By Engineer A Resignation
type: Non-AcquiescencetoEmployerSafetyTestingRejection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X rejection of additional safety testing recommendation
appliedto: Engineer A's resignation decision
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: When Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce in the rejection as a professional endorsement of safety adequacy, ultimately resigning from the company
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's resignation represents a professional response to the irreconcilable conflict between the employer's commercial decision and Engineer A's professional judgment about safety adequacy — resignation preserved Engineer A's professional integrity without requiring continued participation in a product development process Engineer A believed was inadequately safe
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
tensionresolution: Engineer A resolved the tension by resigning rather than either acquiescing silently or taking immediate external action, preserving both professional integrity and the option to contribute to regulatory proceedings later
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.698654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Violation
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientSafetyOverrideObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Company X Employer Reasonableness Recognition Absent Standards Context
defeasible under: Novel Consumer Product Regulatory Standards Vacuum
defeasible under: Present Case Company X Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation
casecontext: Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing due to potential cost and delay, despite Engineer A's identification of inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked By Engineer A Resignation
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Company X
obligationclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
obligationstatement: Company X was obligated to refrain from rejecting Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing solely on cost and schedule grounds when the recommendation was grounded in an engineer's professional identification of unique safety concerns not captured by standard testing, recognizing that economic considerations do not override the obligation to ensure consumer product safety.
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
temporalscope: At the time of Company X's decision to reject the additional safety testing recommendation.
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.701519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Confidentiality Invoked In Post-Employment Testimony Context
type: Confidentiality
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Company X proprietary product information
appliedto: Government public safety standards hearing testimony
balancingwith: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's post-employment testimony at the government safety standards hearing must be calibrated to avoid disclosure of Company X's proprietary product information beyond what is necessary to serve the public safety purpose of the hearing
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:01.921038+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Post-employment confidentiality obligations survive resignation and require Engineer A to distinguish between safety-relevant observations that must be shared with regulators and proprietary technical details that can be withheld without compromising the public safety purpose of the testimony
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Confidentiality
sourcetext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
tensionresolution: Confidentiality yields to public safety disclosure obligations when the information is necessary to protect the public, but continues to constrain disclosure of proprietary information that is not necessary for the regulatory purpose
textreferences: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A resigns from Company X
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.699035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Termination Public Hearing Reporting
type: Post-TerminationEnvironmentalRiskReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
defeasible under: BER 76-4 Client-Suppressed Environmental Findings at Public Hearing
prevails over: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
casecontext: Engineer Doe concluded that XYZ Corporation's plant discharge would lower water quality below established standards, verbally advised the corporation, had his contract terminated with full payment and instructions not to render a written report, then learned the corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing. The Board found Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Client Report Suppression Prohibition Invoked BER 76-4
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Invoked BER 76-4
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 76-4 Engineer Doe Pollution Reporting
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe (BER 76-4)
obligationclass: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated, upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented data at the public hearing contradicting his adverse verbal findings about discharge standards, to report his technical findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, notwithstanding the termination of his contract and the corporation's instruction not to render a written report.
sourcetext: In concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
temporalscope: Upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing
textreferences: In concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.932033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting Invoked Current Case
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernThresholdforExternalReporting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's general good-faith belief that Company X's product raises unique safety concerns — even without confirmed incidents, specific demonstrative findings, or applicable regulatory standards — is sufficient to trigger an obligation to bring those concerns to appropriate governmental authorities for further review and investigation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:04:05.685590+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The good faith belief threshold is lower than the confirmed findings threshold — Engineer A need not have confirmed safety failures to be obligated to report; a professionally grounded good-faith belief is sufficient
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
principleclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting
sourcetext: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
tensionresolution: The good faith belief threshold resolves the tension between the absence of confirmed incidents (which might suggest no reporting obligation) and the public welfare paramount obligation (which requires proactive protection) by establishing that professional judgment, not confirmed harm, is the trigger
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.930715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
type: Post-EmploymentPublicSafetyStandardsWitnessEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Invoked In Post-Employment Testimony Context
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Principle Invoked Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Testimony Constraint
adheres to principle: Objectivity Invoked Engineer A Current Case Standards Hearing Testimony
adheres to principle: Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Hearing Participation
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Post-Employment Testimony Consideration
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Current Case Testimony Decision
has obligation: Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Consideration
has obligation: Engineer A Proprietary Information Boundary in Hearing Testimony
has obligation: Engineer A Public Interest Testimony Obligation at Government Hearing
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_employer': 'Company X', 'forum': 'Government public safety standards hearing'}
caseinvolvement: Former employee of Company X who participates as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing concerning the product category for which safety concerns were raised during employment; the Board found participation ethically permissible subject to competence, objectivity, and confidentiality conditions; if Engineer A has good faith belief of public safety concerns, should bring to appropriate governmental agency.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'Government Public Safety Standards Hearing Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness Engineer
sourcetext: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
textreferences: Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.695835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation Fulfillment
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Current Case Standard Safety Testing Non-Preclusion Additional Concern Reporting
competes with: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence After Company X Rejection
defeasible under: Company X Cost-Driven Rejection of Additional Safety Testing
casecontext: Engineer A reported safety concerns and recommended additional testing to Supervisor B through proper internal channels during employment at Company X.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked By Engineer A Internal Recommendation
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent obligation to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety testing recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B, before the employer's rejection triggered the escalating public welfare obligations.
sourcetext: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
temporalscope: During the employment period at Company X, prior to the employer's rejection of the additional testing recommendation.
textreferences: Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.701801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Acquiescence After Company X Rejection
type: EmployerCost-RejectionNon-AcquiescenceSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation Fulfillment
competes with: Engineer A MedTech BER 08-10 Premature External Reporting Threat
defeasible under: Present Case Company X Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation
prevails over: Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation Fulfillment
casecontext: Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing due to potential cost and delay; Engineer A subsequently resigned from Company X.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked By Engineer A Resignation
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A After Company X Rejection
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:59:27.573928+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employer Cost-Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: After Company X rejected the recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the identified safety concerns required escalation beyond the employer relationship to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to refrain from treating the employer's economic rejection as a final resolution of the safety concern.
sourcetext: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
temporalscope: Following Company X's rejection of the additional safety testing recommendation and continuing through the post-employment period.
textreferences: Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
textreferences: Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.700324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Company X Employer Reasonableness Recognition Absent Standards Context
type: EmployerReasonablenessRecognitioninAbsent-StandardsContextObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Violation
competes with: Engineer A Current Case Employer Cost Rejection Non-Acquiescence Assessment
competes with: Engineer A Current Case Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation
casecontext: Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new consumer product after Engineer A raised general safety concerns. No governmental or industry standards existed to guide Company X's safety testing decisions. The Board found it 'not unreasonable' for Company X to decline additional testing in this context.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context Invoked Company X Current Case
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Company X, current case) and ethics reviewing bodies
obligationclass: Employer Reasonableness Recognition in Absent-Standards Context Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A and the Board of Ethical Review were obligated to recognize that Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing — in response to Engineer A's general concerns about inconsistent performance, in the absence of any applicable governmental or industry standards — was not unreasonable, and that this employer reasonableness is a relevant factor in calibrating Engineer A's post-rejection escalation obligations.
sourcetext: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
temporalscope: At the time Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing following Engineer A's safety concern recommendation
textreferences: Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.931748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
type: ConsumerProductSafetyDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked By Engineer A Internal Recommendation
adheres to principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting Invoked Current Case
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked By Engineer A Resignation
adheres to principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A After Company X Rejection
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Safety Recommendation
adheres to principle: Professional Competence In Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A Safety Observation
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Safety Concern Identification
adheres to principle: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In Current Case
adheres to principle: Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In New Product Context
has obligation: Engineer A Current Case Contextual Calibration General vs Specific Safety Concern
has obligation: Engineer A Current Case Employer Cost Rejection Non-Acquiescence Assessment
has obligation: Engineer A Current Case Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Current Case Standard Safety Testing Non-Preclusion Additional Concern Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation Fulfillment
has obligation: Engineer A Internal Safety Recommendation to Supervisor B
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence After Company X Rejection
has obligation: Engineer A Regulatory Gap Escalation Recognition
has obligation: Engineer A Standard Testing Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Reporting
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Company X', 'context': 'New consumer product with no existing governmental or industry standards'}
caseinvolvement: Employed by Company X; identified general product safety concerns due to inconsistent product performance; believed the new product raised unique safety concerns requiring additional study; advised Company X of this; was rejected on cost/schedule grounds; subsequently participated as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing, which the Board found ethically permissible subject to competence, objectivity, and confidentiality conditions.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:22.878457+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case'}
relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'Government Public Safety Standards Hearing Authority'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance
textreferences: Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
textreferences: Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance
textreferences: Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.695549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction

Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
type: Post-EmploymentProprietaryInformationBoundaryinPublicTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Consideration
competes with: Engineer A Public Interest Testimony Obligation at Government Hearing
competes with: Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Termination Public Hearing Reporting
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Employment Witness Participation Consideration
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk from Unresolved Consumer Product Concern
casecontext: Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing one year after resigning from Company X. The Board conditions the permissibility of this participation on Engineer A not disclosing information that violates confidentiality agreements with Company X.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Confidentiality Invoked In Post-Employment Testimony Context
derived from principle: Confidentiality Principle Invoked Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Testimony Constraint
discoveredincase: 142
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 142
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:06:02.540200+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Company X, current case)
obligationclass: Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary in Public Testimony Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated, as a condition of permissible participation in the government public safety standards hearing, to refrain from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X, recognizing that the post-employment public welfare testimony obligation does not override contractual confidentiality obligations with respect to proprietary product information.
sourcetext: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
temporalscope: During and in preparation for participation in the government public safety standards hearing
textreferences: Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
textreferences: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
wasattributedto: Case 142 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:16:07.931892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 142 Extraction