ProEthica Case 169 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032447
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Applied to Engineer B Findings
type: AdverseTechnicalFindingNon-EquivalencetoMaliciousReputationInjuryPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's adverse findings regarding Engineer A's MEP designs
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment, reached after a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector, did not constitute a malicious or false attempt to injure Engineer A's professional reputation because there was no showing of malicious intent and adverse findings are a normal output of legitimate independent review.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Adverse technical findings reached in good faith after a legitimately commissioned review do not per se constitute malicious reputation injury under Section 12; malicious intent must be separately established and cannot be inferred from the mere existence of adverse conclusions.
invokedby: Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
principleclass: Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Principle
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
tensionresolution: The absence of malicious intent and the legitimacy of the commissioning context resolved the tension in favor of permitting the adverse findings without ethics violation.
textreferences: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility.
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12.
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.047335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Available Evidence Consultation Satisfied By Joint Wiring Inspection
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseForensicOpinion
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Plumbing and heating system assessment
appliedto: Wiring inspection findings
balancingwith: Client interest in expeditious reporting
balancingwith: Engineer A's right to participate in review of his own work
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings, and conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems — demonstrating reasonable evidence consultation before rendering adverse technical opinions
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The joint wiring inspection gave Engineer A direct participation in the evidence-gathering process for that system; the further study of plumbing and heating demonstrates diligent evidence review before adverse conclusions were drawn
invokedby: Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
principleclass: Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Forensic Opinion
sourcetext: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
tensionresolution: The available evidence consultation principle is satisfied: Engineer B conducted a joint inspection with Engineer A for the wiring system and a further independent study for the plumbing and heating systems before issuing findings
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.041764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER-Case-68-11
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 68-11
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions... (See Cases Nos. 68-6 and 68-11.)
textreferences: It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions... (See Cases Nos. 68-6 and 68-11.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent supporting the current ruling
usedincontext: Cited alongside Case 68-6 as prior precedent clarifying the purpose and scope of Section 12(a) regarding peer review notification obligations
version: 1968
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.037985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER-Case-68-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 68-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions... (See Cases Nos. 68-6 and 68-11.)
textreferences: It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions... (See Cases Nos. 68-6 and 68-11.)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent supporting the current ruling
usedincontext: Cited as prior precedent establishing the purpose of Section 12(a): to give the original engineer the opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions so the reviewing engineer has fuller understanding of the original design
version: 1968
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.037837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER_Case_Precedent_Inspection_Report_Criticism
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedent: Engineer Criticism of Prior Engineer's Work in Inspection Report
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case
textreferences: A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case
usedby: BER in analyzing the ethical obligations of Engineer B and Engineer A
usedincontext: Prior BER cases addressing whether an engineer who reviews and critiques a prior engineer's design work in a report for a new owner acts ethically, providing analogical reasoning patterns for this case
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.034623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation Section 12(a)
type: CodeProvisionPurposiveScopeInterpretationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to interpret Section 12(a)'s notification requirement purposively — identifying the purpose of the provision as enabling the original engineer to submit comments and explanations — and applying that purposive interpretation to determine that the notification requirement did not apply when the original engineer's connection with the project had been terminated.
casecontext: Ethics adjudication of whether Engineer B violated Section 12(a) by reviewing Engineer A's work without notification
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Purposive interpretation of Section 12(a) to determine that the notification requirement's purpose was not served in the terminated-connection context, and affirming Engineer B's conduct as ethical
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
textreferences: Nor does the code language so indicate
textreferences: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Ethics-Law Jurisdiction Boundary Self-Restriction
type: Ethics-LawJurisdictionBoundarySelf-RestrictionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics-Law Jurisdiction Boundary Self-Restriction Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to restrict its analysis to the ethical question of whether Engineer B acted ethically, explicitly disclaiming any function of advising the state registration board or passing judgment on whether Engineer B's conduct violated state registration law.
casecontext: Ethics adjudication of Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B for post-occupancy inspection and adverse findings
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Explicit statement that 'it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board' and restriction of analysis to the sole ethical question
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
textreferences: Restricting our analysis and conclusion to the sole question of whether Engineer B acted ethically
textreferences: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.052589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application
type: PeerReviewAdverseFindingNon-MalicePresumptionApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to recognize that Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment did not alone constitute the kind of malicious or false injury to professional reputation prohibited by Section 12, because there was no showing of intent to injure Engineer A's professional reputation or practice.
casecontext: Evaluation of whether Engineer B's adverse inspection findings constituted prohibited injury to Engineer A's professional reputation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Finding that Engineer B's adverse technical conclusions did not satisfy the malicious intent prerequisite for a Section 12 violation
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.053219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Peer Review Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination to Collegial Protection
type: PeerReviewClientandPublicInterestNon-SubordinationtoCollegialProtectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination to Collegial Protection Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to recognize that interpreting Section 12(a) so broadly as to prevent independent post-occupancy review would be contrary to client and public interests, and would subject the profession to justifiable criticism for protecting members at the expense of the public.
casecontext: Interpretation of Section 12's prohibition on injuring professional reputation in the context of legitimate post-occupancy inspection
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Explicit articulation that a broad reading of Section 12 would be contrary to client and public interests and would undermine the profession's public service mission
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally
textreferences: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
textreferences: Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally
textreferences: would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.053075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Peer Review Notification Exemption Terminated-Connection Purposive Interpretation
type: PeerReviewNotificationExemptionTerminated-ConnectionPurposiveInterpretationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Notification Exemption Terminated-Connection Purposive Interpretation Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the capability to interpret Section 12(a)'s notification requirement purposively, recognizing that the purpose of the notification requirement is to give the original engineer opportunity to explain technical decisions, and that this purpose is not implicated when the original engineer's connection with the project was terminated years earlier.
casecontext: Determination of whether Engineer B violated Section 12(a) by reviewing Engineer A's work without notification
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Affirmation that Engineer B was not required to notify Engineer A because Engineer A's connection with the project had been terminated, grounded in purposive interpretation of Section 12(a)
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
textreferences: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
textreferences: the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.052732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Registration Law Jurisdiction Non-Conflation Engineer B Case
type: EthicsBodyRegistrationLawJurisdictionNon-ConflationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed a complaint against Engineer B with the state registration board; the BER was asked to evaluate the ethics of Engineer B's conduct in conducting the post-occupancy inspection.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Ethics Body Registration Law Jurisdiction Non-Conflation Obligation
obligationstatement: The BER was obligated to restrict its analysis to the ethical question of whether Engineer B acted ethically, without passing judgment on whether Engineer B's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law — a question outside the BER's jurisdiction.
sourcetext: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
temporalscope: At the time of issuing the ethics opinion
textreferences: Restricting our analysis and conclusion to the sole question of whether Engineer B acted ethically
textreferences: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.049399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

BER Ethics Body Registration Law Non-Adjudication Scope Limitation
type: EthicsBodyJurisdictionRegistrationLawNon-AdjudicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed a complaint with the state registration board and the BER was asked to evaluate the ethical dimensions; the BER explicitly disclaimed jurisdiction over the registration law question
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
constraintclass: Ethics Body Jurisdiction Registration Law Non-Adjudication Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER was constrained to restrict its analysis exclusively to the ethical question of whether Engineer B acted ethically, and was prohibited from passing judgment on whether Engineer B's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law — that determination being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state registration board.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER institutional scope and professional ethics body jurisdictional principles
sourcetext: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
temporalscope: Throughout the BER case analysis and opinion
textreferences: Restricting our analysis and conclusion to the sole question of whether Engineer B acted ethically
textreferences: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.050986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Case 169 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Cases Nos. 68-11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.970030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Cases Nos. 68-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Files Registration
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Accepts Inspection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Conducts Independen
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Files Critical Desi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Recommends Equipmen
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Ethics Board Issues Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Ethics Board Restricts Analyti
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_Joint Wiring Inspection Partic
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

CausalLink_New Owner Retains Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

City Wiring Inspector Regulatory Participant
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Municipal regulatory inspector', 'specialty': 'Electrical wiring inspection', 'authority': 'City'}
caseinvolvement: Participated in the joint inspection of the facility's wiring alongside Engineer A and Engineer B at the owner's request; the inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'inspection_requested_by', 'target': 'New Facility Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
textreferences: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring
textreferences: a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.035504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Collegial_Notification_Before_Reporting_Standard_Instance
type: CollegialNotificationBeforeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE professional norms and engineering ethics tradition
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norm: Direct Collegial Communication Before Escalating to Regulatory Authorities
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
usedby: BER in evaluating the propriety of Engineer A's decision to file a formal complaint without prior direct engagement with Engineer B
usedincontext: The case raises the question of whether Engineer A, before filing a formal complaint with the registration board, should have first communicated directly with Engineer B to seek clarification or resolution — a standard of collegial professional conduct
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.034417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Completeness Principle Applied to Engineer B Report Assessment
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection report filed with the new facility owner
balancingwith: Client interest in cost-effective remediation
balancingwith: Engineer B commercial interest in expanded scope
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A alleged Engineer B's report did not include all pertinent information; however, the report's structure — finding no plumbing problem while identifying heating inadequacies — demonstrates completeness by reporting both favorable and unfavorable findings about Engineer A's prior work
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The completeness principle requires that advisory reports include all material findings; Engineer B's differentiated treatment of plumbing (adequate) and heating (inadequate) suggests the report was complete rather than selectively adverse
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
tensionresolution: The completeness principle appears satisfied by Engineer B's report: reporting both the plumbing adequacy and the heating inadequacy demonstrates non-selective technical assessment; Engineer A's allegation of incompleteness is not supported by the reported facts
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.041281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 203
answers question4: 403
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B was not unethical in accepting the engagement, the structure of Engineer B's report itself provides the strongest evidence of objectivity: by affirmatively clearing Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying deficiencies only in the heating equipment sizing, Engineer B demonstrated that the report was driven by technical findings rather than competitive animus or a wholesale desire to discredit the predecessor engineer. A purely self-serving report aimed at generating remediation work would have been more likely to identify deficiencies across all systems. The balanced character of the report — adverse on one system, favorable on another — satisfies the completeness and objectivity obligations and substantially undermines Engineer A's allegation that the report was non-objective and self-serving.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B was not unethical leaves unaddressed a genuine, if ultimately non-dispositive, tension: Engineer B stood to benefit financially from recommending higher-capacity equipment installation, since such a recommendation would likely generate additional compensated engineering work. While this financial interest does not by itself render the report unethical — particularly given the balanced findings — the Board would have strengthened its reasoning by explicitly acknowledging this conflict and explaining why it did not rise to the level of an ethical violation. The better practice, consistent with the objectivity and full-disclosure norms embedded in the Code, would have been for Engineer B to disclose to the new owner that the recommended remediation work could result in additional compensation for Engineer B or Engineer B's firm, allowing the owner to make an informed decision about whether to seek independent verification of the sizing conclusions. The absence of such disclosure is a nuance the Board did not address and represents a residual ethical imperfection in Engineer B's conduct that falls short of a violation but nonetheless warrants recognition.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12a
cited provision2: BER-Case-68-6
cited provision3: BER-Case-68-11
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's exoneration of Engineer B implicitly resolves, but does not explicitly articulate, the correct purposive interpretation of the peer review notification requirement under Section 12(a): that requirement exists to give the incumbent or predecessor engineer an opportunity to provide relevant technical information before an adverse opinion is finalized, not to give that engineer a veto over independent review or advance warning sufficient to mount a defensive campaign. In this case, the purpose of the notification requirement was substantially satisfied by a different mechanism — Engineer A was informed by the new owner that Engineer B had been retained, and both engineers participated together in the joint wiring inspection. Engineer A therefore had actual knowledge of Engineer B's engagement and a meaningful opportunity to engage with the review process. The fact that Engineer A was not separately notified before the plumbing and heating study does not constitute a violation because Engineer A's connection to the project had been fully terminated years earlier, and the notification purpose had already been served through the joint inspection. This purposive, rather than formalistic, reading of Section 12(a) is the correct one, and the Board's conclusion implicitly depends on it even though the Board did not make this reasoning explicit.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted ethically does not fully reckon with the temporal and contextual fairness question embedded in Engineer A's implicit defense: seven years elapsed between original occupancy and Engineer B's inspection, during which building codes may have evolved, usage patterns of the facility may have changed, and the original design assumptions may have been rendered obsolete by factors entirely outside Engineer A's control at the time of design. A fully objective and complete report — consistent with the highest standards of professional integrity — would have acknowledged the vintage of the original design, identified the codes and standards applicable at the time of original construction, and distinguished between design decisions that were deficient under the standards then prevailing versus those that merely fell short of current standards or were rendered inadequate by subsequent changes in facility use. The Board's exoneration of Engineer B is correct as a matter of ethical compliance, but the ideal report would have included this contextual framing, both as a matter of fairness to Engineer A and as a matter of completeness to the new owner, who deserved to understand whether the identified inadequacies reflected original design error or the natural obsolescence of aging systems.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: While the Board correctly focused its analysis on Engineer B's conduct, the more ethically troubling behavior in this case is Engineer A's filing of a registration board complaint. Engineer A was aware that Engineer B had been retained, participated in the joint inspection, and had every opportunity to engage constructively with the review process. Instead, upon receiving an adverse technical finding, Engineer A escalated to a formal regulatory complaint characterizing Engineer B's conduct as 'misconduct' and alleging that Engineer B obtained employment by a 'questionable method' of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge — a characterization that is factually inaccurate given Engineer A's actual knowledge of the engagement. This complaint appears to be an attempt to use the regulatory apparatus as a tool of competitive retaliation rather than a good-faith report of genuine professional misconduct. The Code's prohibition on injuring another engineer's reputation through false or malicious criticism, and its broader norms of collegial fairness, are more clearly implicated by Engineer A's complaint than by anything Engineer B did. The Board's restraint in not explicitly condemning Engineer A's complaint as itself a potential ethical violation reflects appropriate caution, but the analytical record supports the conclusion that Engineer A's conduct warrants scrutiny at least equal to that applied to Engineer B.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B's conduct in this case exemplifies two professional virtues that are often in tension: courage and fairness. Courage is demonstrated by Engineer B's willingness to issue an adverse technical finding against a predecessor engineer's design, knowing that doing so would invite professional conflict and a formal regulatory complaint. Fairness is demonstrated by Engineer B's equal willingness to exonerate Engineer A on the plumbing system, resisting any temptation to leverage the engagement as an opportunity for comprehensive criticism. Together, these qualities reflect the character of an engineer who is genuinely oriented toward honest technical service to the client and the public rather than toward competitive advantage or collegial conflict. By contrast, Engineer A's response — filing a registration board complaint rather than engaging the technical substance of Engineer B's findings — reflects a failure of the virtue of intellectual honesty, substituting procedural attack for substantive rebuttal. The virtue ethics lens thus reinforces the Board's conclusion while also illuminating why Engineer A's conduct, though not formally adjudicated, is the more ethically problematic behavior in this case.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer B's failure to explicitly disclose to the new owner that recommending higher-capacity heating equipment would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for himself represents an unaddressed ethical vulnerability in the Board's analysis. While the Board correctly concluded that Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and rendering the report, the undisclosed financial interest in the remediation recommendation creates a structural conflict of interest that the Code's objectivity provisions would ordinarily require to be surfaced. The fact that Engineer B's report was balanced — exonerating the plumbing design while criticizing the heating equipment sizing — provides circumstantial evidence of objectivity, but does not substitute for affirmative disclosure. A fully ethical report would have acknowledged that Engineer B stood to benefit financially from the upgrade recommendation, allowing the owner to weigh that interest when evaluating the advice. The Board's silence on this point leaves an important gap in the ethical analysis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-Section-12a
cited provision3: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A's complaint to the state registration board, filed after he had already been notified of Engineer B's retention and had participated in the joint wiring inspection, bears the hallmarks of self-interested retaliation rather than a good-faith report of professional misconduct. The Board implicitly recognized this by characterizing the complaint as an improper attempt to use regulatory machinery to suppress legitimate peer review. However, the Board stopped short of explicitly asking whether Engineer A's complaint itself violated the Code of Ethics — specifically the prohibition on injuring a fellow engineer's reputation through unfounded allegations and the obligation not to obstruct legitimate engineering review. The facts strongly suggest that Engineer A's complaint was motivated by competitive self-interest and reputational defensiveness rather than genuine concern about Engineer B's professional conduct, and a complete ethical analysis would have examined whether Engineer A's filing of that complaint was itself an ethical violation warranting separate scrutiny.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
cited provision2: Professional_Report_Integrity_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The seven-year gap between original occupancy and Engineer B's inspection raises a fairness question the Board did not address: whether Engineer B's adverse findings about heating equipment sizing were evaluated against the codes, standards, and usage conditions prevailing at the time of Engineer A's original design, or against contemporary standards. If building codes or occupancy patterns changed materially in the intervening years, a report that attributed current inadequacies to original design deficiencies — without contextualizing those findings against the standards applicable at the time of design — would fail the completeness and objectivity obligations that the Code imposes on reviewing engineers. Engineer B's report, as described, does not appear to have included this contextual information. While the Board found the report sufficiently objective based on its balanced treatment of plumbing versus heating, a fully rigorous ethical analysis would require that adverse design findings be anchored to the standards and conditions that governed the original engineer's decisions, not to standards that may have evolved in the years since.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12a
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-Section-12
cited provision3: BER-Case-68-6
cited provision4: BER-Case-68-11
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The Board did not address whether Engineer B had a collegial obligation to provide Engineer A with an opportunity to review and respond to the draft report before it was submitted to the new owner. Given that the report contained adverse findings about Engineer A's professional work — findings capable of damaging his reputation and future business — the principle of professional dignity and the purpose underlying Section 12(a)'s notification requirement both point toward a pre-submission review opportunity as a best practice, even if not a strict ethical mandate. Such an opportunity would have served multiple interests simultaneously: it would have allowed Engineer A to provide original design calculations and contextual information that might have refined Engineer B's conclusions; it would have demonstrated Engineer B's good faith and reduced the appearance of competitive self-interest; and it would have made Engineer A's subsequent registration board complaint far less credible. While the Board's precedents in Cases 68-6 and 68-11 establish that notification is not required for post-completion reviews of terminated relationships, those cases do not foreclose the conclusion that voluntary pre-submission consultation represents the higher ethical standard.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
cited provision2: Professional_Report_Integrity_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B fulfilled a categorical duty of honesty to the new owner by reporting adverse findings about heating equipment sizing without suppressing them to avoid inter-professional conflict. The duty to provide honest, complete, and objective findings to a client who has retained an engineer for an inspection is not contingent on the reputational consequences for the original designer. Engineer B's report, which exonerated the plumbing design while identifying heating deficiencies, reflects the kind of impartial professional judgment that a deontological framework demands: the engineer's obligation runs to the truth of the technical findings and to the client's legitimate interest in accurate information, not to the comfort of a predecessor engineer whose work is under review. The fact that Engineer B's conclusions may have been commercially advantageous to himself does not, under a deontological analysis, negate the duty-fulfilling character of the honest report — though it would have required disclosure of that interest as a separate deontological obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a consequentialist standpoint, Engineer B's inspection and report produced a net benefit sufficient to justify the reputational harm to Engineer A. The new owner received accurate information about the condition of a facility he had just acquired: the plumbing system was cleared of suspicion, and a genuine heating equipment sizing deficiency was identified and could be remediated before it caused harm to occupants. The public occupants of the housing facility benefited from the identification of inadequate heating capacity. The engineering profession benefited from a demonstration that independent post-occupancy review functions as intended — producing balanced, evidence-based findings rather than reflexive criticism or collegial protection. The reputational harm to Engineer A, while real, was a consequence of an honest technical finding rather than a malicious or fabricated allegation, and consequentialist ethics does not require suppression of true adverse findings to protect the feelings or reputation of the person whose work is found deficient.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-Section-12
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's decision to file a registration board complaint against Engineer B — rather than engaging Engineer B directly, offering his original design documentation, or requesting a technical dialogue — reflects a failure of the professional virtues of intellectual honesty, collegial fairness, and proportionality. A virtuous engineer, upon learning that a peer's report had found deficiencies in his work, would first examine whether the findings had technical merit, then seek to provide context that might explain or rebut them, and only resort to formal complaint mechanisms if there were genuine evidence of bad faith or professional misconduct. Engineer A's complaint alleged that Engineer B obtained employment by criticizing him without his knowledge — a characterization that misrepresents the nature of independent post-occupancy inspection and suggests that Engineer A's primary motivation was self-protection rather than the vindication of professional standards. This conduct falls short of the character expected of a professional engineer.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
cited provision2: Professional_Report_Integrity_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B exhibited the professional virtues of courage and integrity by issuing an adverse technical finding against a predecessor engineer's design while simultaneously exonerating that engineer on the plumbing system. The balanced character of the report — adverse on heating, favorable on plumbing — is the strongest available evidence that Engineer B was exercising honest professional judgment rather than pursuing a competitive agenda. A self-serving engineer motivated primarily by the prospect of remediation work would have had every incentive to find deficiencies across all systems. The fact that Engineer B cleared the plumbing design demonstrates a willingness to subordinate financial self-interest to technical accuracy, which is precisely the virtue the profession requires of reviewing engineers. This balanced finding also retroactively undermines Engineer A's allegation that the report was non-objective and self-serving.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12a
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-Section-12
cited provision3: BER-Case-68-6
cited provision4: BER-Case-68-11
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: If Engineer B had notified Engineer A before conducting the independent plumbing and heating study — beyond the joint wiring inspection already performed — such notification would likely have satisfied any residual collegial obligation under Section 12(a) and would not have materially changed the ethical assessment of Engineer B's conduct, but it might have materially improved the technical quality of the report. Notification would have given Engineer A the opportunity to share original design calculations, specifications, and the usage assumptions that governed his original sizing decisions. This information could have either confirmed Engineer B's adverse findings or provided context that modified them. The ethical assessment of Engineer B's conduct would remain favorable either way, because the obligation under Section 12(a) is to consult available evidence before rendering an adverse opinion — and Engineer B satisfied that obligation through the joint wiring inspection. However, proactive notification for the plumbing and heating study would have represented a higher standard of collegial practice and would have made the subsequent registration board complaint essentially untenable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-Section-12
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: If Engineer B had declined the inspection engagement entirely upon learning that the new owner's dissatisfaction was directed at a specific predecessor engineer, such a refusal would have improperly subordinated the owner's and public's legitimate interest in independent engineering review to a form of collegial protectionism that the Code does not sanction. The new owner had a legitimate need for an objective assessment of a facility he had just acquired. The public occupants of the housing facility had a legitimate interest in having heating equipment adequacy independently verified. Declining the engagement to avoid the appearance of criticizing a predecessor engineer would have elevated inter-professional comfort over client service and public safety — an inversion of the engineer's primary obligations. The ethical framework does not require engineers to refuse assignments merely because honest performance of those assignments may result in adverse findings about a predecessor's work.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.966986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
cited provision2: Professional_Report_Integrity_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: If Engineer B's report had failed to note that the plumbing design was adequate — reporting only the heating equipment sizing deficiency — that selective reporting would have constituted a violation of the completeness and objectivity obligations and would have substantially validated Engineer A's complaint of a self-serving, non-objective report. A report that identified only deficiencies while omitting favorable findings would have been structurally biased toward generating remediation work for Engineer B, regardless of whether that bias was intentional. The completeness principle requires that a reviewing engineer's report reflect the full scope of findings, including those favorable to the original designer. Engineer B's actual report, which exonerated the plumbing design, is therefore not merely a virtue — it is an ethical requirement. The Board's implicit reliance on the balanced character of the report as evidence of objectivity is well-founded, and the counterfactual of a one-sided report illustrates precisely why completeness is a non-negotiable obligation rather than a discretionary best practice.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 401
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-Section-12
cited provision3: NSPE-Code-Section-12a
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer A had proactively offered to share original design documentation and calculations with Engineer B before the report was finalized, such cooperation would likely have improved the technical quality of the report, reduced the probability of the registration board complaint, and exemplified the collegial professional conduct the Code envisions. Original design documentation would have allowed Engineer B to evaluate the heating equipment sizing against the loads, codes, and usage assumptions that governed Engineer A's original decisions — potentially contextualizing or moderating the adverse findings. Even if the adverse findings were confirmed, Engineer A's proactive cooperation would have demonstrated intellectual honesty and professional confidence in his original work, making a subsequent complaint of non-objectivity far less credible. The counterfactual highlights a missed opportunity: the Code's collegial obligations run in both directions, and Engineer A's decision to respond to Engineer B's engagement with a registration board complaint rather than professional cooperation represents a failure of the collaborative spirit the Code envisions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12a
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The central tension in this case — between Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility and Professional Dignity — was resolved decisively in favor of the former, but the resolution was not absolute. The Board recognized that once Engineer A's professional connection to the project had ended and he had been fully compensated, his claim to advance notice before adverse findings were reported to the new owner could not override the owner's legitimate interest in independent engineering review. Professional Dignity, as invoked by Engineer A, was reframed not as a substantive entitlement to pre-report notification but as a procedural interest already substantially satisfied by the joint wiring inspection, which gave Engineer A actual knowledge that Engineer B had been retained. The case teaches that Professional Dignity does not extend to a veto — or even a right of prior review — over a successor engineer's technical conclusions about completed work. The principle of Independent Engineering Review as a Client and Public Interest Instrument was treated as the dominant value, subordinating collegial courtesy norms when the two came into conflict.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer B In Balanced Report and Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B Report reveals a deeper principle about what objectivity actually requires. Engineer A argued that objectivity demanded Engineer B include contextual information — the age of the design, codes applicable at the time of original construction, and changed usage conditions — before rendering adverse conclusions about equipment sizing. The Board implicitly resolved this tension by treating Engineer B's balanced findings (exonerating the plumbing design while criticizing the heating equipment sizing) as sufficient evidence of objectivity, without requiring the broader contextual framing Engineer A demanded. This resolution teaches that objectivity in post-occupancy engineering review is primarily measured by the internal consistency and evidentiary grounding of the report, not by the degree to which the reviewing engineer contextualizes or mitigates adverse findings in deference to the original designer's circumstances. However, this resolution leaves open a legitimate residual concern: a truly complete and objective report arguably should acknowledge whether identified deficiencies reflect conditions that were code-compliant at the time of original construction, since that distinction is material to the owner's understanding of whether Engineer A was negligent or merely working within then-prevailing standards.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-Section-12
cited provision2: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The most underexamined principle tension in this case is between Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique and the Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility principle, particularly because Engineer B stood to benefit financially from recommending higher-capacity equipment installation. The Board resolved this tension by treating the absence of demonstrated malicious intent as dispositive: because Engineer B's adverse findings were technically grounded and his report was balanced (clearing the plumbing design), the competitive self-interest concern was insufficient to transform legitimate peer review into an improper competitive method. This resolution establishes an important prioritization rule — financial self-interest in remediation work does not automatically corrupt the objectivity of an adverse engineering finding, provided the finding is evidence-based and the report is internally balanced. However, the case also implicitly teaches that this resolution carries a disclosure corollary that the Board did not explicitly articulate: the principle of Objectivity would be more robustly satisfied if reviewing engineers who stand to benefit from remediation recommendations they make were to disclose that potential interest to the client, not because the interest necessarily compromises the finding, but because transparency about it reinforces rather than undermines the credibility of the adverse conclusion. The Board's silence on this disclosure dimension represents a gap in the principle synthesis that future cases should address.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer B accept the post-occupancy inspection engagement and issue an honest technical report including adverse findings about Engineer A's original design, or decline the engagement to avoid the appearance of competitive criticism of a predecessor engineer?
focus: Engineer B, retained by the new owner to conduct a post-occupancy inspection of a facility originally designed by Engineer A, must decide whether to accept the engagement and issue an honest technical report — including adverse findings about Engineer A's heating equipment sizing — given that Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and paid years earlier, and the new owner has a legitimate need for independent engineering assessment.
option1: Accept the post-occupancy inspection, participate in the joint wiring inspection, conduct an independent plumbing and heating study, and issue a complete and honest report to the new owner — including adverse findings about heating equipment sizing — without suppressing conclusions out of collegial deference to Engineer A, whose project connection has been fully terminated.
option2: Accept the inspection engagement but frame all findings as neutral observations and recommendations for the owner's consideration rather than as adverse conclusions about Engineer A's design decisions, avoiding any characterization of the original equipment sizing as a 'design inadequacy' while still identifying the current performance shortfall.
option3: Decline the inspection engagement upon learning that the new owner's dissatisfaction is directed at a specific predecessor engineer, on the ground that honest performance of the assignment would necessarily involve adverse findings about Engineer A's professional work and could expose Engineer B to a complaint of competitive self-interest.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer B issue a complete and balanced report that affirmatively clears Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying the heating equipment sizing deficiency, and disclose to the new owner that the recommended equipment upgrade could generate additional compensated work for Engineer B — or is it sufficient to report only the adverse heating finding without affirmative disclosure of the potential financial interest?
focus: Engineer B, having identified heating equipment sizing inadequacies in Engineer A's original design, must decide how to structure the report's findings — specifically whether to include the favorable plumbing finding alongside the adverse heating finding, and whether to disclose to the new owner that recommending higher-capacity equipment installation would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for Engineer B — in order to satisfy the completeness, objectivity, and conflict-of-interest disclosure obligations of the Code.
option1: Issue a complete and balanced report that affirmatively clears Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying the heating equipment sizing deficiency, and separately disclose to the new owner that the recommended equipment upgrade could generate additional compensated engineering work for Engineer B, allowing the owner to make an informed decision about whether to seek independent verification of the sizing conclusions.
option2: Issue a complete and balanced report that affirmatively clears Engineer A's plumbing design while identifying the heating equipment sizing deficiency, relying on the report's internal balance as sufficient evidence of objectivity without separately disclosing the potential financial interest in the remediation recommendation — on the ground that such interest is an ordinary and foreseeable consequence of any inspection engineer's role.
option3: Issue a report identifying only the heating equipment sizing deficiency without affirmatively clearing the plumbing design, on the ground that the inspection scope was limited to identifying deficiencies rather than rendering a comprehensive adequacy assessment across all systems.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A respond to Engineer B's adverse technical report by filing a formal registration board complaint alleging that Engineer B acted improperly, or by engaging Engineer B directly with original design documentation and technical rebuttal?
focus: Engineer A, upon receiving Engineer B's adverse technical report identifying heating equipment sizing inadequacies in his original design, must decide how to respond — specifically whether to file a formal registration board complaint characterizing Engineer B's conduct as misconduct, or to engage the technical substance of the findings through professional dialogue and cooperation, given that Engineer A had actual prior knowledge of Engineer B's retention and participated in the joint wiring inspection.
option1: File a formal complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B acted improperly by criticizing Engineer A's design without his knowledge and by obtaining employment through a questionable competitive method, seeking regulatory adjudication of whether Engineer B's conduct violated the Code of Ethics.
option2: Respond to Engineer B's adverse report by proactively sharing original design calculations, specifications, and the usage assumptions that governed the original equipment sizing decisions, inviting Engineer B to reconsider the adverse findings in light of the codes and conditions prevailing at the time of original construction — and, if the findings are confirmed, accepting the technical disagreement as a legitimate difference of professional opinion.
option3: Upon learning of Engineer B's adverse heating findings but before the report is finalized, formally request through the new owner that Engineer B convene a joint technical review session at which Engineer A can present original design documentation and respond to the preliminary conclusions — preserving Engineer A's professional dignity while allowing Engineer B to incorporate contextual information into the final report.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A respond to Engineer B's adverse technical report by filing a registration board complaint, by engaging Engineer B directly with original design evidence, or by accepting the finding as a legitimate peer review outcome?
focus: Engineer A, having been notified of Engineer B's retention and having participated in the joint wiring inspection, must decide how to respond to Engineer B's adverse report on heating equipment sizing: file a formal registration board complaint alleging misconduct, engage Engineer B directly with original design documentation, or accept the adverse finding as a legitimate technical disagreement.
option1: File a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B obtained employment through misconduct by criticizing Engineer A's work without his knowledge, seeking regulatory adjudication of Engineer B's conduct.
option2: Proactively share original design calculations, specifications, and the usage assumptions governing the original equipment sizing with Engineer B, inviting technical dialogue and offering context that might refine or rebut the adverse heating findings before any formal escalation.
option3: Treat Engineer B's adverse finding on heating equipment sizing as a legitimate technical disagreement among qualified engineers, refraining from formal complaint and instead relying on the owner's own judgment about whether to act on the recommendation.
role label: Engineer A Original MEP Design Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer B submit the adverse inspection report to the new owner as completed, first afford Engineer A a pre-submission opportunity to review and respond to the draft findings, or disclose to the owner his potential financial interest in the recommended equipment upgrade before submitting?
focus: Engineer B, having been retained by the new owner to conduct a post-occupancy inspection and having identified heating equipment sizing inadequacies in Engineer A's original design, must decide whether to submit the adverse report to the owner as completed, first provide Engineer A an opportunity to review and respond to the draft findings, or disclose to the owner his financial interest in the remediation work the report recommends.
option1: Submit the adverse inspection report to the new owner as completed, relying on the balanced character of the findings — exonerating the plumbing design while identifying only the heating equipment sizing deficiency — as sufficient evidence of objectivity, without separate pre-submission notice to Engineer A or disclosure of the financial interest in the remediation recommendation.
option2: Before submitting the report to the owner, provide Engineer A with a copy of the draft adverse findings on heating equipment sizing and invite him to share original design calculations, applicable codes at time of construction, and usage assumptions — incorporating any relevant context into the final report before submission.
option3: Before submitting the report, disclose to the new owner that the recommended equipment upgrade would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for Engineer B or Engineer B's firm, allowing the owner to weigh that interest when evaluating the adverse finding and to seek independent verification of the sizing conclusions if desired.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer B frame the adverse heating equipment sizing finding by contextualizing it against the codes and conditions prevailing at the time of Engineer A's original design, report the deficiency against current standards without temporal framing, or limit the report to current system condition findings without attributing design responsibility to Engineer A?
focus: Engineer B, having accepted the post-occupancy inspection engagement from the new owner, must decide how to frame the adverse heating equipment sizing finding in the report: evaluate the original design against standards and conditions prevailing at the time of original construction, evaluate it against current standards without temporal contextualization, or decline to render a comparative judgment about the original design and limit the report to current condition findings only.
option1: Report the heating equipment sizing inadequacy as a current deficiency requiring remediation, relying on the balanced character of the findings — exonerating the plumbing design — as sufficient evidence of objectivity, without separately contextualizing the adverse finding against the codes and conditions that governed Engineer A's original design decisions.
option2: Anchor the adverse heating equipment sizing finding to the codes, load assumptions, and usage conditions prevailing at the time of Engineer A's original design, explicitly distinguishing between deficiencies that were present at original construction and any inadequacies attributable to subsequent code evolution or changed facility use patterns.
option3: Limit the report to a description of the current condition of the heating system and the owner's remediation options, refraining from attributing the sizing inadequacy to Engineer A's original design decisions and instead framing the finding as a present-state assessment without retrospective design criticism.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer A respond to Engineer B's adverse technical report by filing a registration board complaint alleging misconduct, or by engaging Engineer B directly through collegial professional channels?
focus: Engineer A Files Registration Board Complaint Against Engineer B for Technically Compliant Conduct After Receiving Adverse Peer Review Findings
option1: File a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B obtained employment through a questionable method by criticizing Engineer A's design and that the report was non-objective and self-serving, invoking regulatory oversight as the primary response to the adverse findings.
option2: Respond to Engineer B's adverse findings by proactively sharing original design calculations, applicable codes at the time of construction, and usage assumptions with Engineer B, seeking a collegial technical dialogue to either rebut or contextualize the heating equipment sizing conclusions before escalating to any formal mechanism.
option3: Rather than filing a regulatory complaint or engaging Engineer B directly, request that the new owner commission a neutral third-party engineer to evaluate the heating equipment sizing findings against the codes and load conditions prevailing at the time of original construction, allowing the technical dispute to be resolved on its merits without inter-professional conflict.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Design Inadequacy in Equipment Sizing Identified
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer-Notification-Right-Review-Interpretation
type: EngineerNotificationRightinReviewContexts
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: BER Interpretive Guidance on Section 12(a) – Purpose of Notification Requirement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Notification Right in Review Contexts
sourcetext: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in framing the purpose of peer review notification for future guidance
usedincontext: The Board articulates the authoritative interpretation that Section 12(a)'s notification requirement exists to allow the original engineer to explain technical decisions to the reviewer, not to prevent independent review altogether; this interpretation bridges the abstract code provision to the concrete facts of Engineer B's facility inspection
version: Current ruling and prior cases
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.038152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Engagement → Design Inadequacy in Equipment Sizing Identified
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Baseless Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Non-Recognition Failure
type: BaselessPeerComplaintSelf-ServingMotivationRecognitionandAbstentionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Baseless Peer Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Recognition and Abstention Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that the registration board complaint against Engineer B was motivated by reputational self-protection rather than genuine professional misconduct, resulting in an improper complaint filing that constituted a violation of collegial non-retaliation obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A filed the complaint after Engineer B's report found inadequacies in Engineer A's original heating equipment sizing — a finding adverse to Engineer A's professional reputation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Filing a registration board complaint alleging Engineer B acted improperly and was self-serving, when Engineer B had conducted a legitimate post-occupancy inspection and issued an honest, balanced report.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.046359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Engineer B
type: BaselessRegulatoryComplaintNon-FilingAgainstTechnicallyCompliantPeerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed a board complaint alleging Engineer B acted improperly, was not objective, omitted pertinent information, and obtained employment by criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge; none of these allegations rose to the level of an actual ethics violation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Technically Compliant Peer Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B when Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection, participating in a joint review, and issuing an honest technical report — did not constitute an actual ethics or licensure violation.
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.049708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Baseless Regulatory Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Recognition Failure
type: BaselessPeerComplaintSelf-ServingMotivationRecognitionandAbstentionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Baseless Peer Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Recognition and Abstention Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that the registration board complaint against Engineer B was motivated primarily by reputational self-protection rather than genuine professional misconduct, and consequently filed an improper complaint against Engineer B for conduct that was ethically permissible.
casecontext: Engineer A's response to Engineer B's adverse inspection findings on Engineer A's original MEP designs
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B after Engineer B's honest post-occupancy inspection found deficiencies in Engineer A's original designs
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B had violated the state registration law
textreferences: Engineer A filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B had violated the state registration law
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B when Engineer B's conduct was ethically permissible
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.053404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Motivation Disclosure in Registration Board Complaint
type: CompetitiveMotivationDisclosureinPeerMisconductReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's complaint was explicitly motivated by reputational self-protection, as evidenced by the allegation that Engineer B's actions were 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.'
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitive Motivation Disclosure in Peer Misconduct Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to disclose to the registration board that his complaint against Engineer B was motivated at least in part by self-interest in protecting his own professional reputation and practice from the adverse findings in Engineer B's report, rather than presenting the complaint as a purely altruistic professional duty discharge.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code provisions on honest professional conduct
sourcetext: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
temporalscope: At the time of filing the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.045733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Non-Transparency
type: CompetitivePeerMisconductReportingMotivationTransparencySelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that the complaint against Engineer B was motivated by reputational self-interest rather than professional duty, and failed to assess whether the complaint was grounded in genuine misconduct rather than competitive self-protection.
casecontext: The complaint explicitly referenced Engineer A's reputational interests, indicating self-serving rather than public-interest motivation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Filing a complaint explicitly citing harm to Engineer A's 'dignity and reputation' as the basis for the misconduct allegation, revealing self-interested rather than duty-based motivation.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.046657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Through Registration Board Complaint Prohibition
type: CompetitorReputationInjuryProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's complaint explicitly sought to have Engineer B found guilty of misconduct and alleged Engineer B's actions were 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A,' revealing the reputational injury motivation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from attempting to injure Engineer B's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through a registration board complaint alleging 'misconduct' when Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection — did not constitute misconduct, and when Engineer A's motivation was self-protective rather than grounded in genuine public interest.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7
sourcetext: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.044902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Connection Terminated Years Prior to Review
type: PriorEngineerConnectionTerminatedEnablingSuccessorReviewState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A's connection was terminated (years before the review) through the ethics board's analysis
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New Owner/Client
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
stateclass: Prior Engineer Connection Terminated Enabling Successor Review State
subject: Engineer A's professional relationship with the facility project
terminatedby: Not terminated during the analysis period; remains the operative factual condition
textreferences: We do not need at this point, therefore, to consider whether the work of Engineer B was for the same client
textreferences: it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
triggeringevent: Formal termination of Engineer A's connection with the project some years before Engineer B's engagement
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.038840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Employment-by-Criticism Allegation Non-Cognizability Non-Recognition Failure
type: Employment-by-CriticismImproper-MethodAllegationNon-CognizabilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment-by-Criticism Improper-Method Allegation Non-Cognizability Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the allegation that Engineer B 'obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge' does not constitute cognizable professional misconduct, because Engineer B was legitimately retained by the new owner based on professional need.
casecontext: Engineer A's complaint conflated the adverse content of Engineer B's findings with an allegedly improper method of obtaining the engagement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Requesting the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of misconduct for obtaining employment through criticism, when the engagement was properly client-initiated.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.046497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Employment-by-Criticism Improper-Method Allegation Non-Cognizability Recognition Failure
type: Employment-by-CriticismImproper-MethodAllegationNon-CognizabilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment-by-Criticism Improper-Method Allegation Non-Cognizability Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that an allegation that Engineer B obtained employment by criticizing Engineer A's work does not constitute cognizable professional misconduct, because legitimate post-occupancy inspection services are properly obtained through client retention based on professional need.
casecontext: Engineer A's complaint to the state registration board against Engineer B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Filing a complaint alleging that Engineer B obtained employment through improper criticism of Engineer A's work, when in fact Engineer B was legitimately retained by the new owner
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B had violated the state registration law and had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging that Engineer B had violated the state registration law and had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Epistemic Verification Before Registration Board Complaint Filing
type: EpistemicVerificationBeforeCompetitorRegulatoryViolationReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed a complaint alleging misconduct without adequate factual basis, as Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection — was ethically permissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to independently verify the factual basis for alleging Engineer B committed 'misconduct' — including confirming that Engineer B's conduct actually violated applicable ethics provisions — before filing a formal complaint with the state engineering registration board.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; State Engineering Registration Board Rules
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
temporalscope: Prior to filing the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.045585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Files Registration Board Complaint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Full Payment Received
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Against Engineer B
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementCollegialNon-RetaliationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's conclusion that original equipment sizing was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that may differ from Engineer A's original design decisions; Engineer A's regulatory complaint characterized this honest disagreement as 'misconduct' and 'self-serving' conduct.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from retaliating against Engineer B through a formal registration board complaint and misconduct allegations when Engineer B's adverse findings about heating equipment sizing represented a legitimate technical disagreement rather than a malicious or false critique.
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Violated
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementCollegialNon-RetaliationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed a registration board complaint against Engineer B, alleging Engineer B's report was 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A' and that Engineer B obtained employment by a 'questionable method' — after Engineer B's legitimate inspection found deficiencies in Engineer A's original MEP designs.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Professional Reputation Complaint Filing Engineer)
obligationclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from retaliating against Engineer B through a formal registration board complaint after Engineer B's honest professional judgment found inadequacies in Engineer A's original equipment specifications, recognizing that Engineer B's adverse findings represented a legitimate technical disagreement rather than malicious or false conduct.
sourcetext: On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
temporalscope: After Engineer B issued the post-occupancy inspection report finding inadequacies in Engineer A's original designs
textreferences: On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.050818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Improper Complaint Filing Against Engineer B Technically Compliant Conduct
type: BaselessRegulatoryComplaintNon-FilingAgainstTechnicallyCompliantPeerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The registration board complaint alleged Engineer B acted improperly, was not objective, omitted pertinent information, and obtained employment by a questionable method; all of these characterizations misrepresent technically compliant professional conduct as misconduct.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Technically Compliant Peer Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A violated the prohibition on filing improper complaints by initiating a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B for conduct — post-occupancy inspection, joint wiring review participation, and honest technical reporting — that did not rise to the level of an actual ethics or licensure violation, thereby weaponizing the regulatory system against a colleague for technically permissible conduct.
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
temporalscope: Upon filing the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.043076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique of Engineer B Prohibition
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's complaint alleged Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, but Engineer A lacked full knowledge of the evidence and methodology Engineer B employed in reaching the heating equipment sizing conclusion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from alleging Engineer B's report was non-objective and incomplete without full knowledge of the circumstances, evidence, and professional judgment factors that informed Engineer B's conclusions about heating equipment sizing adequacy.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section III.7; NSPE Code Section II.3
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.044744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Via Complaint Filing
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's board complaint against Engineer B constitutes an attempt to obstruct a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by characterizing technically permissible review conduct as professional misconduct.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from obstructing Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by filing a registration board complaint that characterized the review as improper 'misconduct', recognizing that peer review serves the public interest and that Engineer A's professional obligation to public welfare supersedes any personal interest in avoiding scrutiny of prior work.
sourcetext: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.042927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Violated by Complaint Filing
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, knowing that Engineer B had been retained to inspect the facility and that this would entail review of original designs, filed a formal complaint with the state registration board after Engineer B's report found inadequacies in Engineer A's originally specified equipment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Original MEP Design Engineer Subject to Post-Occupancy Critique)
obligationclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from obstructing Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by filing a registration board complaint characterizing Engineer B's honest technical findings as misconduct; Engineer A's complaint constituted an attempt to suppress legitimate peer review through regulatory weaponization.
sourcetext: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
temporalscope: After Engineer B issued the post-occupancy inspection report
textreferences: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
textreferences: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.050299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Original Design Completion and Payment State
type: EmploymentTerminated
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From project completion and occupancy (approximately 11 years before complaint) through the present dispute
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: New owner
affectedparties: Original owner
affectedparties: Prime professional engineer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services
stateclass: Employment Terminated
subject: Engineer A's engagement for mechanical and electrical engineering services on the housing project
terminatedby: Not terminated — post-engagement state persists with continuing professional obligations
textreferences: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services
triggeringevent: Project completion, occupancy, and full payment to Engineer A
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.035685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Original Engineer Awareness Review Engagement Notification Purpose Satisfaction
type: OriginalEngineerAwarenessofReviewNotificationSatisfactionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A knew Engineer B had been retained; BER noted this as a relevant fact in its analysis that Engineer A's connection had been terminated and Engineer A had knowledge of the review
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Original Engineer Awareness of Review Notification Satisfaction Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's obligation to notify Engineer A under Section 12(a) was further constrained — and effectively satisfied — by the fact that Engineer A already had actual knowledge that Engineer B had been retained to conduct the inspection and that the review would necessarily entail evaluation of the original designs, meaning the notification purpose was met even absent formal written notice.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12(a); BER analysis
sourcetext: it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B commenced the post-occupancy inspection
textreferences: it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.051750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Original MEP Design Engineer
type: OriginalMEPDesignEngineerSubjecttoPost-OccupancyCritique
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Mechanical and Electrical Engineering', 'engagement_type': 'Sub-consultant to prime PE', 'complaint_filer': True}
caseinvolvement: Provided mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project as a sub-consultant to the prime PE; was fully paid; years later became subject of a post-occupancy inspection report identifying design inadequacies in hot water and heating equipment sizing; filed a complaint with the state registration board against Engineer B alleging improper, non-objective, and self-serving conduct.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'complaint_filer_against', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'City Wiring Inspector'}
relationships: {'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'sub-consultant_to', 'target': 'Prime Professional Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_review_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Original MEP Design Engineer Subject to Post-Occupancy Critique
sourcetext: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project
textreferences: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
textreferences: Engineer A was fully paid for his services
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.034816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Non-Recognition
type: PeerReviewCooperationObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize the obligation to cooperate with Engineer B's legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection — instead filing a retaliatory complaint that sought to obstruct the review process and penalize Engineer B for conducting it.
casecontext: Engineer A's response to Engineer B's inspection was to file a complaint rather than engage constructively with the findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Filing a registration board complaint against Engineer B for conducting a legitimate post-occupancy inspection, rather than cooperating with or accepting the findings of the review.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.047169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
type: ProfessionalReputationComplaintFilingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Original MEP design', 'connection_to_project': 'Terminated years prior to review', 'complaint_outcome': 'Complaint found without ethical merit'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A, whose original MEP designs were reviewed and found deficient by Engineer B, filed a formal complaint with the state registration board alleging Engineer B acted improperly. Engineer A had prior knowledge that Engineer B had been retained for the inspection. The ethics board found the complaint without merit, affirming that legitimate peer review conclusions do not constitute malicious disparagement.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'complaint_filed_with', 'target': 'State Registration Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'filed_complaint_against', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'original_designer_reviewed_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Professional Reputation Complaint Filing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility
textreferences: Engineer A filed a complaint with the state registration board
textreferences: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility
textreferences: the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.038503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Registration Board Complaint Against Engineer B
type: Self-ServingCriticismComplaintAgainstReviewingEngineerState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From filing of complaint through registration board determination
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State engineering registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
stateclass: Self-Serving Criticism Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer State
subject: Engineer A's formal complaint to the state engineering registration board against Engineer B
terminatedby: Registration board determination (pending)
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
triggeringevent: Engineer B's report identifying design inadequacies in Engineer A's original work
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.036507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Reputational Harm from Predecessor Design Criticism
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's report through registration board proceedings
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State engineering registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.72
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's professional reputation and standing, implicated by Engineer B's report identifying design inadequacies
terminatedby: Registration board determination (pending)
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
triggeringevent: Engineer B's report concluding there were design inadequacies in Engineer A's original work
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.037162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Section 12 Complaint Malicious Intent Non-Shown Non-Violation Recognition
type: AdverseTechnicalConclusionMaliciousIntentNon-PresumptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B violated Section 12 by criticizing the original design; BER found no showing of malicious intent and held that adverse technical conclusions alone cannot constitute a Section 12 violation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A (complainant) and BER
constraintclass: Adverse Technical Conclusion Malicious Intent Non-Presumption Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B was constrained by the requirement that a Section 12 violation requires a showing of malicious or false intent to injure professional reputation — a showing that was absent on the facts, because Engineer B's adverse technical conclusions about heating equipment sizing alone could not constitute the barred conduct without evidence of malicious intent.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12; BER analysis
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
temporalscope: At the time of complaint filing and BER adjudication
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.051138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Serving Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer
type: Self-ServingCriticismComplaintAgainstReviewingEngineerState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From filing of Engineer A's complaint through ethics board resolution
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Professional registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
stateclass: Self-Serving Criticism Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer State
subject: Engineer A's formal complaint against Engineer B with the professional registration board
terminatedby: Ethics board's ruling that Engineer B acted ethically
textreferences: On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
textreferences: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
triggeringevent: Engineer B's report finding that changes were needed in equipment originally specified by Engineer A
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.039695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Engineer B Prohibition
type: Self-ServingRegulatoryComplaintAgainstTechnicallyCompliantPeerProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed a complaint alleging Engineer B committed 'misconduct' by obtaining employment through criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge; the Board found Engineer A's complaint was itself ethically problematic as it sought to suppress legitimate peer review.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Technically Compliant Peer Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B for conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing an honest technical report — that was ethically permissible, when Engineer A's motivation was to protect his own professional reputation rather than to vindicate a genuine ethics violation.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections III.7, III.8; BER Cases 68-6, 68-11
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Technically Compliant Engineer B Prohibition
type: Self-ServingRegulatoryComplaintAgainstTechnicallyCompliantPeerProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed a complaint with the state registration board against Engineer B after Engineer B's report identified inadequacies in Engineer A's original heating equipment sizing; BER found Engineer B acted ethically
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Technically Compliant Peer Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from filing a formal registration board complaint against Engineer B when Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing an honest technical report — was ethically and professionally permissible, and when Engineer A's primary motivation was to protect professional reputation and suppress criticism of prior design work rather than to vindicate a genuine public interest or ethics violation.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12; BER analysis
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the registration board complaint
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.051894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A fully paid meets Engineer A's connection with project terminated
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A retained for project before project completion and occupancy
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer A's connection with project terminated before ownership change
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Accepts Inspection Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Adverse Opinion Grounded in Available Evidence Including Joint Inspection
type: AdverseOpinionAvailableEvidenceConsultationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The joint wiring inspection revealed no defects; Engineer B's report on plumbing and heating was required to be grounded in similarly thorough evidence consultation before adverse conclusions were drawn.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adverse Opinion Available Evidence Consultation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to consult all reasonably available evidence — including the results of the joint wiring inspection conducted with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical opinions about Engineer A's original design work.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.3; NSPE Code Section III.2
sourcetext: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
temporalscope: Prior to and during preparation of the post-occupancy inspection report
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.044397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation
type: AdverseTechnicalFindingMaliciousIntentPrerequisiteNon-SatisfactionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report was self-serving and damaged Engineer A's professional reputation; Engineer B had concluded that changes were needed in the heating equipment originally specified by Engineer A.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer) and BER
obligationclass: Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Prerequisite Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment did not constitute a violation of Section 12's prohibition on reputation injury, because there was no showing of malicious or false intent; the BER was obligated to recognize that adverse technical findings alone are insufficient to establish a reputation-injury violation.
sourcetext: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
temporalscope: At the time of issuing the inspection report and at the time of ethics adjudication
textreferences: On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.049563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Joint Wiring Inspection
type: AdverseTechnicalOpinionEvidenceConsultationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to consult all available evidence — including participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before forming and issuing adverse technical opinions about the original MEP design.
casecontext: Engineer B participated in the joint wiring inspection before conducting further study and issuing the report concluding heating equipment sizing was inadequate.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Participation in the joint wiring inspection organized by the new owner, followed by a further study of plumbing and heating systems before filing the inspection report.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.045898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Available Evidence Consultation Satisfied Joint Wiring Inspection
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinion
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings; the joint inspection found no wiring defects, and Engineer B's subsequent adverse findings on heating equipment were based on further study after the joint inspection.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to consult all available evidence — including participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before forming adverse technical opinions about the facility's systems.
sourcetext: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
temporalscope: Before issuing adverse findings on the facility's engineering systems
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
textreferences: The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.043254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report
type: BalancedAdverse-and-FavorableFindingInspectionReportCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to produce a balanced and complete inspection report that included both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (heating equipment sizing inadequacy), fulfilling the obligation of objective and complete reporting.
casecontext: Engineer B's report addressed multiple systems and reported findings in both directions, demonstrating objectivity rather than selective adverse reporting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Filing a report that explicitly noted no problem with the plumbing system design while also concluding there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of hot water and heating equipment.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.039542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report Completeness
type: BalancedAdverse-and-FavorableFindingInspectionReportCompletenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report Completeness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to produce a balanced inspection report that included both adverse findings (inadequate hot water and heating equipment sizing) and favorable findings (no plumbing design problem), recognizing that selective reporting of only adverse findings would constitute a material omission.
casecontext: Post-occupancy inspection report delivered to new facility owner
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Reporting both that there were design inadequacies in heating equipment sizing and that there was no plumbing design problem, providing a complete and balanced assessment
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B was obligated to be objective and complete in the inspection report, including both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (inadequate hot water and heating equipment sizing)
textreferences: Engineer B was obligated to be objective and complete in the inspection report, including both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (inadequate hot water and heating equipment sizing)
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.053780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Self-Interest Contamination Risk in Criticism
type: CompetitorBidSafetyProtestwithSelf-InterestContaminationRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's report recommending equipment upgrade through registration board review
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.76
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity
stateclass: Competitor Bid Safety Protest with Self-Interest Contamination Risk State
subject: Engineer B's potential self-interest in recommending higher-capacity equipment installation, which would generate additional engineering work
terminatedby: Registration board determination on whether self-interest contaminated Engineer B's assessment (pending)
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
triggeringevent: Engineer B's recommendation for installation of higher-capacity equipment following identification of alleged design inadequacies
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.037006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Assessment Heating Recommendation
type: CompetitiveSelf-InterestCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The potential self-interest in recommending higher-capacity equipment (which would generate additional work for Engineer B) required assessment of whether the critique was improperly motivated by competitive self-interest.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.8
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from offering critical opinions about Engineer A's original heating equipment sizing when Engineer B stood to benefit commercially from the recommended remediation; however, the constraint was not violated because Engineer B's criticism was grounded in a legitimate technical assessment rather than competitive procurement context.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Sections III.6, III.7
sourcetext: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
temporalscope: During preparation of the post-occupancy inspection report and recommendation
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.045224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Conducts Independent Plumbing and Heating Study
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Conducts Independent Plumbing and Heating Study → Engineer B Files Critical Design Report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Employment Acquisition Through Predecessor Design Criticism
type: ReviewingEngineerEmploymentAcquisitionThroughPredecessorCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From new owner's retention of Engineer B through registration board complaint
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New owner
affectedparties: State engineering registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
stateclass: Reviewing Engineer Employment Acquisition Through Predecessor Criticism State
subject: Engineer B's retention by new owner and subsequent report critical of Engineer A's original design
terminatedby: Registration board determination (pending)
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity
textreferences: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
triggeringevent: New owner's retention of Engineer B following dissatisfaction with original facility systems
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.036693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Files Critical Design Report
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Files Critical Design Report → Engineer A Files Registration Board Complaint
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Honest Disagreement Permissibility Heating Equipment Sizing Conclusion
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B's report was not objective; however, Engineer B's adverse finding on heating equipment sizing represents an honest professional judgment based on further study, not a fabricated or malicious critique.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that may differ from Engineer A's original design decisions; this honest technical disagreement does not constitute an ethics violation and should be recognized as such by the registration board.
sourcetext: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B issued the inspection report
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.043423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Heating Equipment Sizing
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementBetweenQualifiedEngineersNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that constitutes an honest technical disagreement rather than an ethical violation, demonstrating the capability to reach and stand by technically grounded adverse conclusions.
casecontext: Engineer B's adverse finding on heating equipment sizing was the basis for Engineer A's complaint, but the finding represented legitimate professional judgment rather than misconduct.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Issuing a report concluding that the original heating equipment sizing was inadequate and recommending higher-capacity equipment, despite this conclusion being adverse to Engineer A's original design work.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity
textreferences: concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.046187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Post-Occupancy Inspection Context
type: ImproperCompetitiveMethodProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A; the Board's analysis required assessment of whether the method of obtaining the engagement was improper.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from obtaining the post-occupancy inspection engagement through improper or questionable methods, including by exploiting the new owner's dissatisfaction with Engineer A's original design to generate additional remediation work; however, the Board found that Engineer B's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned inspection and issuing an honest report — did not violate this constraint.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section III.6
sourcetext: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B accepted the inspection engagement and issued the report
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.045051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Joint Inspection Adverse Opinion Epistemic Grounding
type: AdverseTechnicalOpinionEvidenceConsultationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to ground adverse technical opinions in available evidence by participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing adverse conclusions about the wiring design.
casecontext: Post-occupancy inspection of housing facility, including joint wiring inspection organized by the new owner
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Participation in joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and city inspector, which provided the epistemic foundation for the wiring-related findings
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B was obligated to participate in available joint inspection opportunities with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing adverse conclusions
textreferences: Engineer B was obligated to participate in available joint inspection opportunities with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing adverse conclusions
textreferences: participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.053625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Joint Inspection Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion
type: AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Before issuing findings about Engineer A's original designs, Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector; the joint inspection did not reveal problems with the wiring, while Engineer B's subsequent report identified inadequacies in the heating equipment sizing.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer)
obligationclass: Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to consult available evidence — including participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical findings about Engineer A's original MEP designs, ensuring the adverse opinion was grounded in shared evidentiary review.
sourcetext: Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings
temporalscope: Prior to issuing the inspection report containing adverse findings about Engineer A's original designs
textreferences: Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings
textreferences: On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.049993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Joint Multi-Party Inspection Coordination and Participation
type: JointMulti-PartyInspectionCoordinationandParticipationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Joint Multi-Party Inspection Coordination and Participation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to participate constructively in a joint inspection organized by the new facility owner that included Engineer A and the city wiring inspector, using the joint inspection as the epistemic foundation for wiring-related adverse opinions.
casecontext: Joint wiring inspection organized by new facility owner as part of post-occupancy review
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Participation in joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and city wiring inspector, which provided the basis for wiring-related findings
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector
textreferences: Engineer B participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector
textreferences: the joint inspection did not reveal a wiring problem
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Joint Multi-Party Wiring Inspection Participation
type: JointMulti-PartyInspectionCoordinationandParticipationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Joint Multi-Party Inspection Coordination and Participation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to participate constructively in a joint inspection organized by the new owner that included Engineer A (the original designer) and the city wiring inspector, providing the epistemic foundation for subsequent technical opinions.
casecontext: The joint inspection was organized at the owner's request and included the original engineer, the reviewing engineer, and a regulatory inspector.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Participating in the joint wiring inspection alongside Engineer A and the city wiring inspector, which resulted in no defects being found in the wiring — a finding that was then incorporated into the subsequent report.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.043600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Joint Wiring Inspection Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion
type: AdverseOpinionAvailableEvidenceConsultationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The joint wiring inspection revealed no defects in the wiring system, which was a relevant finding that Engineer B was obligated to incorporate into the overall assessment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Adverse Opinion Available Evidence Consultation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to consult all reasonably available evidence — including participating in the joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical opinions about Engineer A's original wiring design, ensuring that adverse conclusions were grounded in full available evidence rather than incomplete assessment.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics professional objectivity provisions; BER analysis
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
temporalscope: Prior to and during preparation of the inspection report
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.052254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Joint Wiring Inspection Participation Adverse Opinion Grounding
type: JointInspectionParticipationAdverseOpinionEpistemicGroundingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the new owner to inspect the facility; a joint wiring inspection was conducted with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector at the owner's request before Engineer B issued findings on the wiring.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Joint Inspection Participation Adverse Opinion Epistemic Grounding Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to participate in available joint inspection opportunities with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing adverse findings, ensuring that adverse opinions were grounded in shared evidentiary review.
sourcetext: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
temporalscope: Before issuing adverse technical findings on the wiring systems
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.042054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Objective and Complete Reporting Balanced Findings
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information; however, the report demonstrated objectivity by finding no problem with plumbing while identifying heating inadequacies.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to be objective and complete in the inspection report, including both favorable findings (no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (heating equipment sizing inadequacies), without selective omission of pertinent information.
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
temporalscope: At the time of filing the inspection report with the new owner
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.042380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation
type: PeerReviewKnowledgeRequirementPurpose-LimitedInterpretationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the new facility owner to conduct a post-occupancy inspection of a large housing project originally designed by Engineer A as MEP sub-consultant; Engineer A's connection had been terminated years earlier upon full payment and project completion.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer)
obligationclass: Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to understand and apply Section 12(a)'s notification requirement according to its actual purpose — enabling the original engineer to submit technical explanations — rather than as a prohibition on review, and to proceed with the inspection consistent with that purpose-limited reading given Engineer A's terminated connection.
sourcetext: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
temporalscope: At the time of accepting and conducting the post-occupancy inspection engagement
textreferences: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.049255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Program Public Benefit Recognition Post-Occupancy Inspection
type: PeerReviewProgramPublicBenefitRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Program Public Benefit Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B's conduct in conducting the post-occupancy inspection and issuing an honest, balanced report exemplifies the public benefit of independent engineering review — providing the new owner with accurate information about facility systems and serving the broader public interest in engineering quality.
casecontext: Engineer B's independent review provided the new owner with accurate information about MEP system adequacy seven years after original occupancy.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Conducting a thorough post-occupancy inspection, participating in joint wiring inspection, and issuing a balanced report that served the new owner's genuine interests and the public interest in accurate facility assessment.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.047007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Prohibition Interpretation Client Public Interest Non-Subordination
type: PeerReviewProhibitionInterpretationClientandPublicInterestNon-SubordinationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The new facility owner retained Engineer B to inspect the building's systems and resolve current problems; Engineer A argued that Engineer B's review was improper under Section 12(a).
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B and BER
obligationclass: Peer Review Prohibition Interpretation Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was ethically entitled to proceed with the post-occupancy inspection, and the BER was obligated to recognize that interpreting Section 12(a) to prohibit such review would be contrary to the interests of the client and the public, and would subject the profession to justifiable criticism for placing member interests above public welfare.
sourcetext: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
temporalscope: At the time of the inspection engagement and at the time of ethics adjudication
textreferences: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
textreferences: Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.049851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Technical Comment Opportunity Purpose Articulation
type: PeerReviewTechnicalCommentOpportunityPurposeArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Technical Comment Opportunity Purpose Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated awareness of the purpose of the peer review notification requirement — to give the original engineer opportunity to explain technical decisions — and applied this understanding in recognizing that the notification requirement did not apply given Engineer A's terminated connection with the project.
casecontext: Determination of notification obligations before commencing post-occupancy inspection
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with review without notification, consistent with understanding that the notification purpose was not implicated by Engineer A's terminated connection
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.053922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Completion Notification Exemption Recognition
type: Post-CompletionContract-TerminatedPeerReviewNotificationExemptionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Completion Contract-Terminated Peer Review Notification Exemption Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B correctly recognized that because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the original client had been fully completed and paid seven years prior, no active incumbent relationship existed requiring prior notification before commencing the post-occupancy inspection.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the new owner approximately seven years after original occupancy; Engineer A had been fully paid and the project fully completed before the ownership change.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with the post-occupancy inspection without prior notification to Engineer A, which was found to be ethically permissible given the fully completed nature of Engineer A's prior engagement.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
textreferences: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
textreferences: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
textreferences: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.046046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Completion Review Without Notification Permissibility
type: Post-CompletionTerminated-RelationshipPeerReviewNotificationNon-RequirementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B acted improperly by reviewing and criticizing Engineer A's design without Engineer A's knowledge; the Board found this allegation without merit because Engineer A's relationship with the project had long since terminated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Peer Review Notification Non-Requirement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was not required to notify Engineer A before conducting the post-occupancy inspection because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and paid seven years prior, satisfying the exception to NSPE Code Section III.8.a's notification requirement.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section III.8.a; BER Cases 68-6, 68-11
sourcetext: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B accepted the inspection engagement, approximately seven years after original occupancy
textreferences: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
textreferences: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
textreferences: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.044081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Notification Permissibility
type: Post-CompletionTerminated-RelationshipReviewWithoutIncumbentNotificationPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge; however, Engineer A had been fully paid and the project completed seven years prior, with ownership having since changed.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Incumbent Notification Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection, because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and terminated through full payment years prior to the review; the NSPE III.8.a notification requirement does not apply to engineers whose connection with the work has been terminated.
sourcetext: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B commenced the post-occupancy inspection
textreferences: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
textreferences: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.042544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Notification Permissibility Recognition
type: Post-CompletionContract-TerminatedPeerReviewNotificationExemptionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Completion Contract-Terminated Peer Review Notification Exemption Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize that because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed and paid years earlier, Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before conducting the post-occupancy inspection.
casecontext: Post-occupancy inspection of housing facility seven years after original occupancy, with Engineer A's connection fully terminated
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with post-occupancy inspection without notifying Engineer A, consistent with the terminated-connection exemption under Section 12(a)
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
textreferences: Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection, because Engineer A's contractual relationship with the project had been fully completed
textreferences: the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.052914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
type: Post-OccupancyFacilityInspectionEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Building systems inspection and evaluation', 'report_author': True, 'retained_by': 'New Facility Owner'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by the new facility owner to inspect the building's systems; participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector; conducted a further study of plumbing and heating systems; filed a report finding no plumbing design problem but identifying design inadequacies in hot water and heating equipment sizing, recommending higher-capacity equipment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'City Wiring Inspector'}
relationships: {'type': 'joint_inspection_participant_with', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'New Facility Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewer_of_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_complaint_by', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
sourcetext: the new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
textreferences: the new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.035039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Non-Suppression
type: Post-OccupancyInspectionHonestAdverseFindingNon-SuppressionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection found no problem with the plumbing design but identified inadequacies in the heating equipment originally specified by Engineer A; Engineer A alleged the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer)
obligationclass: Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Non-Suppression Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to report all material findings honestly and completely to the new facility owner — including findings that identified inadequacies in Engineer A's original heating equipment specifications — without suppressing adverse conclusions out of collegial deference to Engineer A.
sourcetext: Engineer B's report demonstrated objectivity by finding no problem with the plumbing design while identifying inadequacies in the heating equipment
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the post-occupancy inspection report
textreferences: Engineer B's report demonstrated objectivity by finding no problem with the plumbing design while identifying inadequacies in the heating equipment
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.050135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Plumbing Heating Report
type: Post-OccupancyInspectionHonestAdverseFindingNon-SuppressionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After the joint wiring inspection revealed no defects, the owner advised Engineer B of complaints about plumbing and heating systems; Engineer B conducted further study and issued a report finding no plumbing problem but identifying heating equipment sizing inadequacies.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:19:17.209429+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Non-Suppression Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to report all material findings honestly and completely to the new owner, including the conclusion that there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of hot water and heating equipment, without suppressing adverse findings out of collegial deference to Engineer A.
sourcetext: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
temporalscope: Upon completion of further study of plumbing and heating systems
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.042236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Reporting Objectivity
type: Post-OccupancyInspectionScopeCompletenessandObjectivityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information; BER analysis required objectivity and completeness in the inspection report
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Occupancy Inspection Scope Completeness and Objectivity Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to report all material findings honestly, completely, and objectively in the post-occupancy inspection report — including both the finding that there was no plumbing design problem and the finding that the heating equipment sizing was inadequate — prohibiting selective reporting that would make the original design appear worse or better than it actually was.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics professional report integrity provisions; BER analysis
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B prepared and submitted the inspection report
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.052063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Report Completeness and Objectivity
type: Post-OccupancyInspectionScopeCompletenessandObjectivityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information; the Board's analysis required assessment of whether Engineer B's report met the completeness and objectivity standard.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Occupancy Inspection Scope Completeness and Objectivity Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to report all material findings honestly and completely, including both the favorable finding (no plumbing design problem) and the adverse finding (design inadequacies in heating equipment sizing), without selective omission of either category.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.3; NSPE Code Section III.2
sourcetext: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the post-occupancy inspection report
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.044245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection Deficiency Identification
type: Post-OccupancyMEPSystemsInspectionandDeficiencyIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection and Deficiency Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possessed the technical capability to conduct a systematic post-occupancy inspection of MEP systems — including wiring, plumbing, and hot water/heating equipment — and to identify design inadequacies in the original equipment sizing, leading to a technically grounded recommendation for higher-capacity equipment installation.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by the new owner to inspect the facility's systems and produced findings across wiring, plumbing, and heating domains.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Conducting a further study of the plumbing and heating systems after the joint wiring inspection, identifying design inadequacies in original hot water and heating equipment sizing, and recommending installation of higher-capacity equipment.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.041914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection and Deficiency Identification
type: Post-OccupancyMEPSystemsInspectionandDeficiencyIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection and Deficiency Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the technical capability to conduct a systematic post-occupancy inspection of the housing facility's mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, identifying design inadequacies in hot water and heating equipment sizing while finding no plumbing design problem.
casecontext: Post-occupancy inspection of large housing facility seven years after original occupancy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Conducting post-occupancy inspection that identified inadequate hot water and heating equipment sizing as design deficiencies while finding plumbing design adequate
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:32.551570+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B concluded that there were design inadequacies in the original hot water and heating equipment sizing
textreferences: Engineer B concluded that there were design inadequacies in the original hot water and heating equipment sizing
textreferences: Engineer B found no plumbing design problem
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Occupancy Review Notification Non-Requirement Terminated Connection
type: DischargedEngineerPeerReviewNotificationNon-RequirementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B violated Section 12(a) by reviewing the original design without Engineer A's knowledge; BER found the exception clause satisfied because Engineer A's connection had been terminated years earlier
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Discharged Engineer Peer Review Notification Non-Requirement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was not ethically required to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection because Engineer A's connection with the project had been terminated some years earlier, satisfying the exception clause of Section 12(a), and because Engineer A already had actual knowledge that Engineer B had been retained to conduct the inspection.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12(a); BER Cases 68-6 and 68-11
sourcetext: the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B commenced the post-occupancy inspection
textreferences: Section 12(a) - 'An Engineer in private practice will not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.'
textreferences: it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
textreferences: the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.051288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Recommends Equipment Upgrade
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Registration Board Complaint Subject
type: RegistrationBoardComplaintSubjectEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Facility inspection and MEP systems review', 'complaint_outcome': 'Found to have acted ethically'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B conducted a post-occupancy facility inspection and review of Engineer A's original designs, concluded changes were needed, and subsequently became the subject of a formal complaint filed by Engineer A with the state registration board alleging improper conduct under Section 12(a). The ethics board affirmed Engineer B acted ethically, finding no malicious intent and that the review served client and public interests.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'New Facility Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewed_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_complaint_before', 'target': 'State Registration Board'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Registration Board Complaint Subject Engineer
sourcetext: whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
textreferences: Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
textreferences: whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.038345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Report Alleging Design Inadequacies in Heating Equipment Sizing
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From filing of Engineer B's report through registration board complaint and ethical review
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New owner
affectedparties: State engineering registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer B's report on the plumbing and heating systems of the housing facility
terminatedby: Registration board determination (pending)
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
triggeringevent: Engineer B's further study of plumbing and heating systems following owner's complaint
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.036196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Review Conducted With Engineer A's Knowledge
type: Post-OccupancyDesignAdequacyDisputeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer B was retained through the ethics board's analysis
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
stateclass: Post-Occupancy Design Adequacy Dispute State
subject: Engineer B's review engagement and Engineer A's awareness of it
terminatedby: Ethics board resolution affirming Engineer B's conduct was ethical
textreferences: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
triggeringevent: New owner retaining Engineer B to conduct an engineering inspection of the facility, with Engineer A's knowledge
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.039015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Review Without Malicious Intent
type: ReviewWithoutMaliciousIntentConfirmedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer B's review engagement and report preparation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
stateclass: Review Without Malicious Intent Confirmed State
subject: Engineer B's motivational state in conducting the review and preparing the report
terminatedby: Ethics board's affirmative finding that no malicious intent was shown
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
triggeringevent: Ethics board's evaluation of the information submitted regarding Engineer B's conduct
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.039171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Self-Interest Disclosure Heating Equipment Recommendation
type: ReviewingEngineerSelf-InterestDisclosureinPost-OccupancyInspectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A alleged Engineer B's actions were self-serving; the recommendation for higher-capacity equipment would generate additional engineering work for Engineer B, creating a potential conflict between objective professional judgment and commercial self-interest.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Reviewing Engineer Self-Interest Disclosure in Post-Occupancy Inspection Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was required to disclose to the new owner any potential commercial self-interest in recommending higher-capacity heating equipment installation, given that Engineer B stood to benefit from being retained to design and oversee the recommended remediation work.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Section III.2; NSPE Code Section II.4
sourcetext: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
temporalscope: At the time of issuing the recommendation for higher-capacity equipment installation
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.044564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Self-Interest Disclosure Reviewing Engineer Remediation Recommendation
type: ReviewingEngineerSelf-InterestDisclosureinPost-OccupancyInspectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's report recommended changes to heating equipment sizing, and Engineer B potentially stood to benefit from the remediation work; Engineer A alleged Engineer B's actions were self-serving
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Reviewing Engineer Self-Interest Disclosure in Post-Occupancy Inspection Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to disclose to the new owner any potential self-interest in recommending higher-capacity heating equipment installation — given that Engineer B stood to benefit commercially from being retained to design and oversee the recommended remediation — and to ensure that the recommendation was grounded in genuine technical necessity rather than commercial self-interest.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest and objectivity provisions
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B issued the inspection report and remediation recommendations
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.052442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B Terminated-Connection Peer Review Notification Exemption Recognition
type: Post-CompletionTerminated-RelationshipReviewWithoutIncumbentNotificationPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's sub-consultant engagement for MEP design had been fully completed and paid years before Engineer B was retained; Engineer A alleged Engineer B obtained employment by a 'questionable method' of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer)
obligationclass: Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Incumbent Notification Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was not obligated to notify Engineer A before commencing the post-occupancy inspection because Engineer A's connection with the project had been terminated years earlier upon full payment and project completion, satisfying the termination exception in Section 12(a).
sourcetext: it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B accepted and commenced the post-occupancy inspection engagement
textreferences: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
textreferences: it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
textreferences: unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.049073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer B's plumbing and heating report filed before Engineer A's complaint to state registration board
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer_Reporting_Obligation_Licensing_Board_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerReportingObligationtoLicensingBoardStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State engineering registration board
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Engineering Registration Board Rules: Misconduct Reporting and Complaint Procedures
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct'
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
usedby: Engineer A in filing the formal complaint against Engineer B
usedincontext: Engineer A invoked the state engineering registration board's complaint mechanism, alleging Engineer B committed 'misconduct' — the board's rules and procedures govern what constitutes reportable misconduct and the obligations of engineers who believe a colleague has violated professional conduct rules
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.034278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Engineer_Solicitation_Competition_Ethics_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics professional obligations
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norm: Ethical Limits on Engineer Competition and Criticism of Colleagues
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
usedby: Engineer A in the misconduct complaint; BER in evaluating whether Engineer B's conduct crossed ethical lines in competitive solicitation
usedincontext: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's actions were self-serving at the expense of Engineer A's dignity and reputation, and that Engineer B obtained employment through questionable criticism of Engineer A — invoking the prohibition on injuring another engineer's reputation as a means of soliciting work
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.034112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Ethics Board Issues Engineer B Exoneration
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Ethics Board Restricts Analytical Scope
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Ethics Board Restricts Analytical Scope → Ethics Board Issues Engineer B Exoneration
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Applied to Engineer B Adverse Findings
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's adverse technical findings regarding Engineer A's MEP equipment specifications
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's conclusion that changes were needed in Engineer A's originally specified equipment represented a legitimate professional disagreement about the adequacy of the original MEP designs — a normal feature of engineering practice that does not constitute an ethics violation merely because it differs from Engineer A's original professional judgment.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The fact that Engineer B reached different conclusions about the adequacy of the original equipment specifications than Engineer A had when designing them is a permissible professional disagreement, not evidence of malicious intent or ethics violation.
invokedby: Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12.
tensionresolution: Honest professional disagreement resolved in favor of permitting Engineer B's adverse findings as a legitimate exercise of independent professional judgment.
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12.
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.048560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Honest Disagreement Permissibility Applied to Engineer B Findings
type: HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's original MEP design decisions regarding hot water and heating equipment sizing
balancingwith: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
balancingwith: Professional Dignity of Engineer A
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's conclusion that the original equipment sizing for hot water and heating was inadequate represents a legitimate professional judgment that differs from Engineer A's original design decisions — a permissible honest disagreement among qualified engineers, not misconduct
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The fact that Engineer B reached different conclusions about equipment adequacy than Engineer A's original design reflects does not constitute an ethics violation; engineering judgment about equipment sizing admits of honest professional disagreement
invokedby: Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
principleclass: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
tensionresolution: Honest disagreement permissibility prevails: Engineer B's adverse findings about equipment sizing are a legitimate professional judgment, not misconduct; the registration board should not find Engineer B guilty of misconduct solely because conclusions differ from Engineer A's original design
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.041075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Improper Complaint Filing By Engineer A Against Engineer B
type: ImproperComplaintFilingProhibitionAgainstEngineerforTechnicallyCompliantConduct
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Registration Board Complaint Subject
appliedto: State Registration Board Regulatory Authority
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Self-advocacy rights
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A filed a board complaint against Engineer B for conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing a technically grounded report — conduct that does not constitute professional misconduct — thereby weaponizing the regulatory system to protect personal reputation from legitimate critique
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Filing a board complaint against an engineer for conducting a legitimate post-occupancy inspection and issuing a balanced technical report is itself an ethics violation; the complaint is motivated by reputational self-protection rather than genuine concern about professional misconduct
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
sourcetext: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on improper complaint filing prevails: Engineer A's complaint is grounded in reputational self-interest rather than genuine ethics concern; Engineer B's conduct — a legitimately commissioned inspection with balanced findings — does not constitute misconduct
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.040484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Against Engineer B
type: ImproperComplaintFilingProhibitionAgainstEngineerforTechnicallyCompliantConduct
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B before the state registration board
balancingwith: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's formal complaint to the state registration board against Engineer B was improper because Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection and adverse findings constituted technically permissible and ethically compliant conduct; filing the complaint weaponized the regulatory system against a colleague for conduct that was not an ethics or licensure violation.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Where a reviewing engineer's conduct is technically permissible — legitimately commissioned, conducted without malicious intent, and resulting in good-faith adverse findings — a formal complaint against that engineer is itself an ethics violation by the complaining engineer.
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
sourcetext: we affirm previous cases holding that it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
tensionresolution: The improper complaint prohibition resolved the tension by identifying Engineer A's complaint as the ethics violation, not Engineer B's review.
textreferences: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
textreferences: we affirm previous cases holding that it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.047673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Applied to Post-Completion Review Context
type: IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection of Engineer A's completed MEP designs
balancingwith: New owner's right to independent inspection
balancingwith: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B obtained employment 'by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge', invoking the principle that reviewing engineers must notify the incumbent before issuing adverse findings; however, Engineer A's status as 'incumbent' was effectively extinguished seven years after project completion and full payment
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The incumbent notification principle applies to active competitive review situations; where the original engineer's engagement is long-completed and fully paid, the 'incumbent' status has lapsed and the notification obligation is significantly attenuated or inapplicable — particularly where a joint inspection was conducted with Engineer A's participation
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
sourcetext: Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
tensionresolution: The incumbent notification principle does not apply with full force in this context: Engineer A was not an active incumbent (project completed seven years prior, fully paid); moreover, Engineer A participated in the joint wiring inspection, providing direct engagement with the review process for that system
textreferences: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
textreferences: Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.041446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Independent Engineering Review as Client and Public Interest Instrument Applied to Owner Retention of Engineer B
type: IndependentEngineeringReviewasClientandPublicInterestInstrumentPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: New facility owner's commissioning of Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The new facility owner's retention of Engineer B to inspect the building's systems and review original designs served both the owner's interest in resolving current facility problems and the broader public interest in engineering quality; any interpretation of Section 12 that would bar such review would harm client and public interests and expose the profession to justifiable criticism.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Ethics codes governing peer review must be interpreted to preserve rather than restrict the client's ability to obtain independent engineering evaluation of prior work, particularly when current facility problems require resolution.
invokedby: New Facility Owner Client
invokedby: Public Stakeholder Served by Independent Review
principleclass: Independent Engineering Review as Client and Public Interest Instrument Principle
sourcetext: Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves.
tensionresolution: Client and public interests in independent review outweighed Engineer A's professional dignity interest in avoiding adverse findings from a legitimately commissioned review.
textreferences: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility.
textreferences: Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.048009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Joint Wiring Inspection Participation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Joint Wiring Inspection Participation → No Wiring Defects Found
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Joint Wiring Inspection Revealing No Defects
type: ContradictedSafetyAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From joint inspection through Engineer B's subsequent plumbing/heating report
affectedparties: City wiring inspector
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
stateclass: Contradicted Safety Assessment
subject: The facility's wiring system
terminatedby: Joint inspection concluded with no defects found; focus shifted to plumbing and heating
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
textreferences: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring
triggeringevent: New owner's complaint about wiring problems, prompting joint inspection by Engineer A, Engineer B, and city wiring inspector
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.036028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Legitimate Inter-Engineer Technical Disagreement on Heating System Adequacy
type: LegitimateInter-EngineerPublicDisagreementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's report through registration board proceedings
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New owner
affectedparties: State engineering registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
stateclass: Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
subject: Technical disagreement between Engineer A (original designer) and Engineer B (reviewing engineer) regarding adequacy of heating equipment sizing
terminatedby: Registration board determination or technical resolution (pending)
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
triggeringevent: Engineer B's conclusion that original equipment sizing was inadequate for hot water and heating
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.036851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-12
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 12 (Historical)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Code of Ethics - Section 12 - 'The Engineer will not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer, nor will he indiscriminately criticize another engineer's work.'
textreferences: Code of Ethics - Section 12 - 'The Engineer will not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer, nor will he indiscriminately criticize another engineer's work.'
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's conduct
usedincontext: Primary normative reference governing whether an engineer may injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation or practice of another engineer, and whether indiscriminate criticism of another engineer's work is permissible
version: Historical version (no longer in force)
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.037326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-12a
type: PeerReviewWithoutNotificationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section 12(a) (Historical)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:29.671161+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Peer Review Without Notification Standard
sourcetext: Section 12(a) - 'An Engineer in private practice will not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.'
textreferences: Section 12(a) - 'An Engineer in private practice will not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.'
textreferences: we affirm previous cases holding that it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's peer review of Engineer A's original design
usedincontext: Governs the prohibition on reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, or unless the prior engineer's connection with the work has been terminated; central to determining whether Engineer B's review was ethically permissible
version: Historical version (no longer in force)
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.037485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case
textreferences: A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing obligations of both Engineer A and Engineer B
usedincontext: Primary normative framework for evaluating whether Engineer B's conduct in preparing and filing the inspection report, and Engineer A's complaint to the registration board, were ethically proper
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

New Facility Owner Client
type: NewFacilityOwnerRetainingInspectionEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'New property owner / client', 'acquisition_timing': 'Seven years after original occupancy'}
caseinvolvement: Acquired ownership of the housing facility seven years after original occupancy; retained Engineer B to inspect the facility; organized a joint inspection of wiring with both engineers and the city inspector; raised concerns about plumbing and heating systems to Engineer B.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'notified', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'requested_joint_inspection_with', 'target': 'City Wiring Inspector'}
relationships: {'type': 'requested_joint_inspection_with', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'requested_joint_inspection_with', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: New Facility Owner Retaining Inspection Engineer
sourcetext: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed
textreferences: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed
textreferences: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
textreferences: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
textreferences: The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.035354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

New Owner Retains Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.032711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

No Plumbing Design Issues Found
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

No Wiring Defects Found
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Applied to Engineer A Knowledge of Engineer B Retention
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's response to Engineer B's legitimate post-occupancy inspection and review
balancingwith: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, who knew that Engineer B had been retained by the new owner to inspect the facility and that this review would necessarily entail evaluation of the original designs, had an obligation not to obstruct that review — and Engineer A's subsequent complaint against Engineer B constituted an attempt to obstruct or penalize the legitimate review after the fact.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Knowledge that a peer review is underway, combined with the obligation not to obstruct it, extends to refraining from using regulatory complaints to penalize the reviewing engineer for adverse findings reached in good faith.
invokedby: Engineer A Original MEP Design Engineer
principleclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
sourcetext: it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
tensionresolution: Engineer A's professional dignity interest in not having prior work adversely reviewed did not override the obligation not to obstruct the legitimate review commissioned by the new owner.
textreferences: it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
textreferences: it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.047823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Violated By Engineer A Complaint
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection commissioned by the new facility owner
balancingwith: Engineer A's right to respond to adverse findings
balancingwith: Professional Dignity of Engineer A
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's board complaint against Engineer B constitutes an attempt to obstruct a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection by characterizing the reviewer's adverse findings as 'misconduct', thereby discouraging independent technical scrutiny of prior engineering work
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The new owner's right to commission an independent inspection of the facility's systems is a legitimate exercise of client autonomy; Engineer A's attempt to suppress adverse findings through a board complaint obstructs this legitimate review process
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
sourcetext: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring.
tensionresolution: Non-obstruction prevails: Engineer A may respond to adverse findings through technical rebuttal but may not use regulatory complaints to deter legitimate post-occupancy review
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
textreferences: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.040682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Objectivity Applied to Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's technical evaluation of Engineer A's original MEP designs
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B conducted the post-occupancy inspection and review of Engineer A's MEP designs based on objective technical assessment — participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector — without evidence of bias, malicious intent, or self-serving motivation, thereby satisfying the objectivity obligation in forensic and inspection contexts.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Objectivity in post-occupancy inspection requires the reviewing engineer to base conclusions on technical evidence gathered through appropriate methods (including joint inspection), without allowing competitive or personal motivations to distort findings.
invokedby: Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
tensionresolution: Engineer B's objective methodology — joint inspection, no showing of malicious intent — satisfied the objectivity obligation and distinguished the review from prohibited competitive critique.
textreferences: participated in a joint wiring inspection with Engineer A and the city inspector
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.048917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Objectivity Demonstrated By Engineer B In Balanced Report
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Post-occupancy inspection of plumbing and heating systems in the housing facility
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional Dignity of Engineer A
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's report demonstrated objectivity by finding no problem with the plumbing design while identifying inadequacies in the heating equipment sizing — a balanced assessment that did not uniformly condemn Engineer A's prior work
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in post-occupancy inspection requires reporting both adequacies and inadequacies found; Engineer B's differentiated findings (plumbing adequate, heating equipment undersized) are consistent with objective professional assessment
invokedby: Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
tensionresolution: Objectivity prevails: Engineer B reported findings as technically assessed, not as uniformly adverse to Engineer A; the balanced nature of the report supports a finding of objective professional conduct
textreferences: Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.040314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B Report
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection report on plumbing and heating systems
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, invoking the objectivity standard as the basis for a board complaint
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, objectivity requires that Engineer B's report present all material technical findings without self-serving selectivity; however, the report's acknowledgment that plumbing was adequate while identifying heating inadequacies suggests Engineer B did apply objective assessment rather than uniformly adverse critique
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
tensionresolution: The objectivity principle cuts against Engineer A's complaint: Engineer B's report was balanced (finding no plumbing problem while identifying heating inadequacies), suggesting objective rather than self-serving assessment
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.040094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Ownership Change Triggering New Engineering Inspection
type: Post-OccupancyDesignAdequacyDisputeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From new owner's retention of Engineer B through registration board complaint and ethical review
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New owner
affectedparties: State engineering registration board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:57.640328+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed
stateclass: Post-Occupancy Design Adequacy Dispute State
subject: The housing facility's mechanical and electrical systems, specifically plumbing, heating, and wiring
terminatedby: Registration board determination (pending)
textreferences: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed
textreferences: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring
textreferences: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
triggeringevent: Change of facility ownership approximately seven years after original occupancy, followed by new owner's retention of Engineer B and identification of alleged design inadequacies
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.035849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Ownership Transfer Occurs
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Ownership Transfer Occurs → New Owner Retains Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose Limitation Applied to Engineer A Complaint
type: PeerReviewKnowledgeRequirementPurposeLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B before the state registration board
balancingwith: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
balancingwith: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B misused Section 12(a) as a shield against adverse technical findings rather than invoking it for its legitimate purpose of enabling the prior engineer to provide contextual explanation to improve the quality of the review.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The knowledge requirement exists to improve review quality for the client's benefit, not to protect the prior engineer from adverse findings; Engineer A's invocation of it to suppress Engineer B's adverse conclusions was contrary to the requirement's purpose.
invokedby: State Registration Board Regulatory Authority
principleclass: Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose Limitation Principle
sourcetext: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions
tensionresolution: The purpose-limitation principle resolved the tension by clarifying that adverse findings do not trigger the knowledge requirement's protections, which exist solely for contextual completeness.
textreferences: The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12.
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing his comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.043931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Peer Review Restriction Public Interest Non-Suppression Constraint Application
type: PeerReviewJudgmentandDiscretionFact-SpecificSafetyAssessmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board recognized that a restrictive interpretation of Section III.8.a that would require notification even for post-completion inspections of terminated relationships would conflict with the public interest in legitimate engineering review.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constrainedentity: Ethics Board / Registration Board
constraintclass: Peer Review Judgment and Discretion Fact-Specific Safety Assessment Constraint
constraintstatement: The registration board was constrained from adopting an interpretation of peer review notification requirements that would prohibit all post-completion inspections of prior engineers' work without notification, because such an interpretation would suppress legitimate post-occupancy engineering assessments and harm the public interest in identifying design deficiencies in occupied facilities.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:35.601029+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.8.a; BER Cases 68-6, 68-11
sourcetext: A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case.
temporalscope: At the time of adjudicating Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B
textreferences: A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case.
textreferences: The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.045408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Peer Review Restrictive Interpretation Client Public Interest Non-Subordination Engineer A Complaint Context
type: PeerReviewRestrictiveInterpretationClientandPublicInterestNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER rejected Engineer A's restrictive reading of Section 12(a) on grounds that it would harm clients and the public by preventing legitimate engineering review of original designs
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A and BER
constraintclass: Peer Review Restrictive Interpretation Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's proposed interpretation of Section 12(a) — that Engineer B could not ethically review the original design without notification — was constrained by the principle that such a reading would be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally, would render post-occupancy inspections ethically impermissible, and would subject the profession to justifiable criticism for placing member interests above public interests.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER analysis
sourcetext: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
temporalscope: At the time of BER adjudication and as ongoing interpretive guidance
textreferences: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
textreferences: Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.051608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Peer Review Section 12a Purpose Limitation Notification Non-Blocking Interpretation
type: PeerReviewNotificationPurpose-LimitedScopeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER articulated the purpose of Section 12(a) to prevent its misuse as a tool to block legitimate engineering review
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: BER and all engineers interpreting Section 12(a)
constraintclass: Peer Review Notification Purpose-Limited Scope Constraint
constraintstatement: The peer review notification requirement of Section 12(a) is constrained in its purpose to providing the original engineer an opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions — it cannot be interpreted as a mechanism to prevent legitimate post-occupancy inspections or design reviews, particularly when the original engineer's connection has been terminated.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:28:22.252966+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 12(a); BER Cases 68-6 and 68-11
sourcetext: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing his comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client
temporalscope: Ongoing interpretive guidance for future cases
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing his comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client
textreferences: we affirm previous cases holding that it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.051440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Peer_Review_Without_Notification_Standard_Instance
type: PeerReviewWithoutNotificationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE professional norms and engineering registration board rules
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norm: Engineer Review of Another Engineer's Work Without Notification
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Peer Review Without Notification Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
usedby: Engineer A in framing the misconduct complaint; BER in evaluating Engineer B's conduct
usedincontext: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B acted improperly by reviewing and criticizing Engineer A's original design work without Engineer A's knowledge, raising the question of whether Engineer B was obligated to notify Engineer A before conducting the inspection and filing the report
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Plumbing and Heating Complaints Documented
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Prime Professional Engineer Specialist-Retaining Prime Consultant
type: Specialist-RetainingPrimeConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'role_type': 'Prime consultant', 'specialty': 'General engineering / project prime'}
caseinvolvement: The prime PE who retained Engineer A as a sub-consultant to provide specialized mechanical and electrical engineering services for the large housing project.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:39.214476+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'prime_consultant_for', 'target': 'Housing Project'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project
textreferences: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.035176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Professional Dignity Applied to Engineer A Interest in Review Notification
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's interest in notification before Engineer B reviewed original MEP designs
balancingwith: Independent Engineering Review as Client and Public Interest Instrument Principle
balancingwith: Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional dignity interest in being notified of and having an opportunity to respond to a review of original design work was acknowledged as a legitimate concern underlying Section 12(a)'s knowledge requirement, but this interest was outweighed by the termination of Engineer A's connection to the project and the client's interest in independent review.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Professional dignity supports the knowledge requirement's purpose of enabling the prior engineer to provide context, but does not extend to shielding the prior engineer from adverse findings or preventing client-commissioned independent review after the engagement has concluded.
invokedby: Engineer A Original MEP Design Engineer
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions
tensionresolution: Professional dignity interest was outweighed by the termination of connection and client/public interest in independent review; the dignity interest was served by the joint inspection in which Engineer A participated.
textreferences: it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility
textreferences: the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.048761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Professional Dignity Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B Critique
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's adverse findings about hot water and heating equipment sizing
balancingwith: Client's right to independent inspection
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's inspection report and recommendations damaged Engineer A's professional dignity and reputation, framing the adverse technical findings as an unjust attack on Engineer A's professional standing
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional dignity protects engineers from unjust reputational attacks; however, technically grounded adverse findings about prior work — even when they reflect unfavorably on the original designer — do not constitute a dignity violation when they are the product of objective professional assessment
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
tensionresolution: Professional dignity is not violated by Engineer B's conduct: the principle protects against malicious or false attacks, not against legitimate technical critique; Engineer B's balanced report represents objective professional assessment rather than an unjust reputational attack
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.041600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Professional_Report_Integrity_Standard_Instance
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics and professional engineering norms
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norm: Objectivity and Completeness of Engineering Reports
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:12:07.657759+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
usedby: Engineer A in the complaint; BER in evaluating whether Engineer B's report met professional standards
usedincontext: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, directly invoking the standard that engineering reports must be accurate, complete, and not selectively framed to mislead clients or disparage other engineers
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Invoked By Engineer A Against Engineer B
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's inspection report and recommendations
balancingwith: Client's right to independent inspection
balancingwith: Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A alleged that Engineer B's report was 'self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A', characterizing Engineer B's technically grounded inspection findings as a malicious competitive attack on Engineer A's professional standing
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:17:13.415521+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A invokes this principle as the basis for the board complaint; however, the principle's application must distinguish between malicious reputation attack and legitimate technical critique — Engineer B's balanced report (finding plumbing adequate while identifying heating inadequacies) does not exhibit the malice or falsity required to constitute a violation
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
tensionresolution: The prohibition does not apply to Engineer B's conduct: Engineer B's critique was technically grounded, balanced, and commissioned by the client — not a malicious competitive attack; Engineer A's complaint misapplies this principle
textreferences: Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
textreferences: further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.040897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked Against Engineer A Complaint
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's formal complaint against Engineer B before the state registration board
balancingwith: Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's filing of a formal complaint against Engineer B with the state registration board — after Engineer B's legitimate inspection found deficiencies in Engineer A's original MEP designs — constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation and practice through the weaponization of the regulatory complaint process.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Using the professional regulatory complaint system to suppress legitimate adverse findings about one's own prior work, where the reviewing engineer acted in good faith and without malicious intent, is itself a form of malicious or false attempt to injure the reviewing engineer's professional standing.
invokedby: Engineer A Professional Reputation Complaint Filer
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: The Engineer will not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer
tensionresolution: Engineer A's complaint was found to be an improper use of the regulatory system; Engineer B's conduct was ethically permissible and the complaint itself was the ethics violation.
textreferences: The Engineer will not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.047505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Project Completion and Occupancy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.033098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Public Stakeholder Served by Independent Review
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'General public', 'interest': 'Access to independent engineering review and correction of design deficiencies'}
caseinvolvement: The general public is identified as a key stakeholder whose interests are served by permitting engineers to independently review and critique original designs. The ethics board explicitly invoked public interest to reject any reading of Section 12 that would suppress legitimate peer review, noting that placing professional self-interest above public welfare would subject the profession to justifiable criticism.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'protected_by', 'target': 'Independent peer review process'}
relationships: {'type': 'served_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally
textreferences: contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally
textreferences: would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.036352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.967999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: On the basis of the summarized facts above, was Engineer B unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer B have an obligation to disclose to the new owner that his recommendation to install higher-capacity equipment would likely generate additional compensated engineering work for himself, and does that undisclosed financial interest compromise the objectivity of his report?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Given that Engineer A was notified of Engineer B's retention and participated in the joint wiring inspection, does Engineer A's subsequent complaint to the registration board constitute an improper attempt to suppress legitimate peer review, and should the Board have examined whether Engineer A's complaint itself violated the Code of Ethics?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Seven years elapsed between original occupancy and Engineer B's inspection. To what extent should the passage of time, evolving building codes, and changed usage patterns factor into the ethical evaluation of whether Engineer B's adverse findings about original equipment sizing were a fair basis for criticism of Engineer A's design decisions made under the conditions prevailing at the time of original construction?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should the Board have addressed whether Engineer B was obligated to provide Engineer A with an opportunity to review and respond to the draft report before it was submitted to the new owner, particularly given that the report contained adverse findings about Engineer A's professional work that could damage his reputation and future business prospects?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility — which allows Engineer B to review Engineer A's completed work without notification — conflict with the principle of Professional Dignity that Engineer A invokes as entitling him to advance notice before adverse findings about his work are reported to a client?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Independent Engineering Review as a Client and Public Interest Instrument conflict with the principle of Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique when the reviewing engineer stands to benefit financially from the remediation work his adverse report recommends — and if so, which principle should prevail and under what conditions?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility — which protects Engineer B's right to reach adverse technical conclusions — conflict with the principle of Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A, which demands that Engineer B's report include all pertinent contextual information such as the age of the design, applicable codes at the time of construction, and any changed usage conditions that might explain the equipment sizing?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review — which condemns Engineer A's complaint as an attempt to suppress valid technical scrutiny — conflict with the principle of Prohibition on Reputation Injury, which Engineer A legitimately invokes to protect himself from adverse professional findings that may have been influenced by Engineer B's competitive self-interest in recommending costly remediation work?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.964970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill a categorical duty to provide honest, complete, and objective findings to the new owner, regardless of the reputational consequences for Engineer A as the original designer?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, did the outcome of Engineer B's independent inspection and report — identifying heating equipment sizing inadequacies while clearing the plumbing design — produce a net benefit for the new owner, the public occupants of the facility, and the integrity of the engineering profession, sufficient to justify any reputational harm to Engineer A?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of intellectual honesty and collegial fairness when filing a registration board complaint against Engineer B, or did the complaint reflect self-interested retaliation inconsistent with the character expected of a professional engineer?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B exhibit the professional virtues of courage and integrity by issuing an adverse technical finding against a predecessor engineer's design — while also exonerating that engineer on the plumbing system — rather than softening conclusions to avoid inter-professional conflict?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer B had notified Engineer A before conducting the independent plumbing and heating study — beyond the joint wiring inspection already performed — would that notification have satisfied any collegial obligation under Section 12(a), and would it have materially changed the ethical assessment of Engineer B's conduct?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer B had declined the inspection engagement entirely upon learning that the new owner's dissatisfaction was directed at a specific predecessor engineer — would such a refusal have better served professional ethics, or would it have improperly subordinated the owner's and public's legitimate interest in independent engineering review to collegial protectionism?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer B's report had failed to note that the plumbing design was adequate — reporting only the heating equipment sizing deficiency — would that selective reporting have constituted a violation of the completeness and objectivity obligations, and would it have lent credibility to Engineer A's complaint of a self-serving, non-objective report?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer A, upon learning of Engineer B's retention, had proactively offered to share original design documentation and calculations with Engineer B before the report was finalized — would such cooperation have altered the technical conclusions, reduced the likelihood of the registration board complaint, and better exemplified the collegial professional conduct the Code of Ethics envisions?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.965422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.969123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:50:26.968678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Restrictive Peer Review Interpretation Public Interest Conflict
type: PeerReviewRestrictionPublicInterestConflictState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the ethics board's deliberation on the case
affectedparties: Clients/owners generally
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineering profession
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
stateclass: Peer Review Restriction Public Interest Conflict State
subject: The ethics board's interpretive choice regarding the scope of peer review prohibitions
terminatedby: Ethics board's ruling rejecting the restrictive interpretation and affirming the legitimacy of peer review
textreferences: Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
textreferences: Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves
triggeringevent: Engineer A's complaint implicitly advancing a reading of Section 12 that would restrict Engineer B's review
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.039377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Reviewing Engineer Employment Through Predecessor Criticism Context
type: ReviewingEngineerEmploymentAcquisitionThroughPredecessorCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the new owner's decision to retain Engineer B through the ethics board's analysis
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: New Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:14:19.467783+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility
stateclass: Reviewing Engineer Employment Acquisition Through Predecessor Criticism State
subject: Engineer B's acquisition of the inspection engagement in the context of dissatisfaction with Engineer A's original design
terminatedby: Ethics board's ruling that Engineer B's method of obtaining employment was not improper
textreferences: Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility
textreferences: there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
triggeringevent: New owner's commissioning of Engineer B to inspect and assess the facility following identification of alleged design inadequacies
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.039849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

State Registration Board Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Adjudication
type: HonestTechnicalDisagreementBetweenQualifiedEngineersNon-Ethical-ViolationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The state registration board needed the capability to recognize that Engineer B's adverse technical conclusion about heating equipment sizing constitutes an honest professional disagreement rather than misconduct, and that Engineer A's complaint did not establish cognizable ethical violations.
casecontext: The registration board received Engineer A's complaint and served as the regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the professional conduct dispute.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Adjudicating Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B and assessing whether the conduct alleged constitutes professional misconduct under applicable standards.
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:21:36.836797+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: State Registration Board
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board
textreferences: A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case.
textreferences: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.046824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

State Registration Board Regulatory Authority
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'State licensing authority', 'function': 'Professional conduct adjudication and licensure enforcement'}
caseinvolvement: The state registration board received Engineer A's complaint against Engineer B and serves as the regulatory authority with jurisdiction over professional conduct and licensure violations. The ethics board explicitly disclaimed any intent to advise or pass judgment on the registration board's proceedings.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:13:54.465246+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'has_jurisdiction_over', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'received_complaint_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board
textreferences: he shall present such information to the proper authority for action
textreferences: it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board
textreferences: whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.038665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility Invoked by Engineer B Review of Engineer A Work
type: Terminated-ConnectionPeerReviewPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's post-occupancy inspection and review of Engineer A's original MEP designs
balancingwith: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's review of Engineer A's MEP designs was ethically permissible because Engineer A's connection to the project had been terminated years earlier and full payment had been received, extinguishing any notification obligation under Section 12(a).
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 169
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 169
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T22:23:58.507752+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The termination of Engineer A's connection to the project — completed years before the review, with full payment received — meant that Section 12(a)'s knowledge requirement did not apply, and Engineer B could proceed with the review without notifying Engineer A.
invokedby: Engineer B Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
principleclass: Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
tensionresolution: The termination-of-connection exception resolved the tension in favor of permitting review without notification; the knowledge requirement's rationale did not apply to a long-concluded engagement.
textreferences: Section 12(a) - 'An Engineer in private practice will not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.'
textreferences: We do not need at this point, therefore, to consider whether the work of Engineer B was for the same client.
textreferences: it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
wasattributedto: Case 169 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.043780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

Wiring Problems Surface
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.054715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

joint wiring inspection before Engineer B's plumbing and heating study and report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

new owner retaining Engineer B before joint wiring inspection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

ownership change meets new owner retaining Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

project completion and occupancy before Engineer A's connection with project terminated
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction

project completion and occupancy before ownership change
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T22:36:17.055189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 169 Extraction