ProEthica Case 19 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.754500
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

ABC Consultants Employer
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Private engineering consulting firm', 'services': 'Bridge and culvert design', 'jurisdictions': ['State Q', 'State Z']}
caseinvolvement: Engineering consulting firm employing Engineer A for bridge and culvert design work in State Q and State Z, whose competitive position is potentially affected by XYZ Engineers' marketing practices
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.756116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Anonymous Reporting Adequacy Constraint Engineer A Licensing Board Complaint
type: AnonymousReportingAdequacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint with the engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct; BER Case 02-11 concluded that anonymous reporting was ethical but that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the board's investigation and fairer to the complainant
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Anonymous Reporting Adequacy Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained in the adequacy of the anonymous complaint filed with the engineering licensing board — while the anonymous filing was ethical and better than no report, it was constrained in its effectiveness by the absence of an identified complainant who could provide sworn testimony, documentary evidence, or follow-up cooperation to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, establishing that a signed complaint would have been preferable to fully discharge the reporting obligation.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case 02-11; NSPE Code of Ethics reporting obligation provisions
sourcetext: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed the anonymous complaint with the engineering licensing board
textreferences: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
textreferences: The BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.774655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Anonymous Reporting Adequacy Constraint Engineer A State Q and State Z Licensing Boards
type: AnonymousReportingAdequacyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced the question of whether an anonymous complaint to the licensing boards would adequately discharge the mandatory written reporting obligation under both states' rules, given the competitive relationship with XYZ Engineers and the potential investigative limitations of anonymous complaints, as addressed in BER Case 02-11.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Anonymous Reporting Adequacy Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained, if choosing to file an anonymous complaint against XYZ Engineers and Engineer B with the State Q and State Z licensing boards, from treating anonymous filing as a complete discharge of the mandatory written reporting obligation under both states' rules — particularly given that the licensing boards' investigative capacity may be materially limited by the absence of an identified complainant who can provide sworn testimony and documentary evidence — and was required to assess whether the gravity of the identified misconduct and the boards' investigative needs required identified rather than anonymous reporting.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: State Q Licensing Board Rules (written reporting requirement); State Z Licensing Board Rules (written reporting requirement); BER Case 02-11 (anonymous complaint precedent)
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A decided how to fulfill the reporting obligation to both licensing boards
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.769588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Anonymous Reporting Precedent Invoked from BER Case 02-11
type: AnonymousReportingasEthicalMinimum
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER referenced BER Case 02-11 to establish that anonymous complaints to licensing boards, while less preferable than signed complaints, are ethically permissible and superior to no report at all — providing background context for Engineer A's reporting obligation in the current case
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The anonymous reporting precedent from BER Case 02-11 establishes the minimum ethical floor for reporting obligations, confirming that the form of the complaint (signed vs. anonymous) does not eliminate the underlying duty to report
invokedby: Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Anonymous Reporting as Ethical Minimum
sourcetext: an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical
tensionresolution: The BER resolved the tension between ideal transparent reporting and practical reporting barriers by establishing that anonymous reporting satisfies the minimum ethical obligation, with signed reporting remaining the preferred approach
textreferences: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B
textreferences: the BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.771266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Attribution Ambiguity Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

BER Case 02-11
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 02-11
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
textreferences: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct to the engineering licensing board.
textreferences: the BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
usedby: BER in reasoning about Engineer A's reporting obligations and the permissibility of anonymous complaints
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that engineers have a clear obligation to report misconduct to the engineering licensing board, and that an anonymous complaint, while less ideal than a signed one, is ethically permissible
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.759717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

BER Case 76-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 76-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
textreferences: BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority.
usedby: BER in reasoning about Engineer A's reporting obligations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities when a client terminates an engineer and suppresses findings
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.759562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

BER Precedent Applied
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Case 19 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Declines State Q Re
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Investigates Market
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Reports to State Z
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Reviews Applicable
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Completes Prior Pro
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

CausalLink_Partial Attribution Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

CausalLink_XYZ Hires Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Competitor Awareness Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint Engineer A State Z Reporting
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingCompetitiveInterestNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is a competing engineer who reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals and identified potential misconduct; the competitive relationship between Engineer A and XYZ Engineers creates a risk that reporting motivations may be mixed between genuine professional obligation and competitive self-interest
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained, when reporting XYZ Engineers' State Z misconduct to the State Z licensing board, to ensure that the reporting decision was grounded in genuine professional ethics and public interest — not in competitive self-interest arising from Engineer A's status as a competing firm — and was constrained from allowing competitive motivations to either deter reporting of the genuine State Z rule violation or to inflate the State Q ambiguity into a reportable violation for competitive advantage.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics reporting obligation provisions; BER Case 02-11; Procurement Protest Ethical Boundary Constraint precedent
sourcetext: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A filed or considered filing complaints with State Q and State Z licensing boards
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.774472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Constraint Engineer A State Q Licensing Board
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingCompetitiveInterestNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers, faced the ethical tension between the mandatory reporting obligation under State Q rules and the risk that reporting a competitor could be perceived as — or actually motivated by — competitive self-interest rather than genuine public interest in accurate qualification representations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained, in deciding whether and how to report XYZ Engineers' and Engineer B's qualification proposal practices to the State Q licensing board, to ensure that the reporting decision was grounded in genuine professional ethics and public interest rather than competitive self-interest — given that Engineer A worked for ABC Consultants, a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers in the same metropolitan market — while simultaneously being constrained from allowing competitive self-interest to deter reporting of genuine violations that the State Q rules required to be reported.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: State Q Licensing Board Rules (reporting obligation); NSPE Code of Ethics (honorable conduct provisions); Procurement Protest Ethical Boundary principles
sourcetext: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A assessed whether to report to the State Q licensing board
textreferences: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.769379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Q
type: CompetitorQualificationProposalMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed State Q's licensing board rules and identified that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices — presenting prior-employer projects with only a prefatory attribution notice rather than consistent project-level disclosure — may constitute misrepresentation of past accomplishments in violation of State Q's rules. State Q's rules expressly require licensees with such knowledge to report to the Board in writing.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, having knowledge or reason to believe that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers violated State Q's licensing board rules prohibiting misrepresentation of facts in solicitation presentations, was obligated to report that knowledge or belief to the State Q Board of Licensure in writing.
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
temporalscope: Upon forming knowledge or reasonable belief that a violation of State Q's rules had occurred
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.765384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Z
type: CompetitorQualificationProposalMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed State Z's licensing board rules and identified that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals failed to include, next to each specific prior-employer project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement — a clear violation of State Z's explicit attribution requirements. State Z's rules expressly require licensees with such knowledge to report to the Board in writing.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, having knowledge or reason to believe that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers violated State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring project-level attribution of prior-employer projects in qualification proposals, was obligated to report that knowledge or belief to the State Z Board of Licensure in writing.
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
temporalscope: Upon forming knowledge or reasonable belief that a violation of State Z's rules had occurred
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.765524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: The proposal practices of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were not unethical from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 203
answers question4: 204
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that XYZ Engineers' proposal practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code rests implicitly on a document-level reading of transparency: because the prefatory attribution notice existed somewhere in the proposal, the overall presentation did not constitute falsification or misrepresentation. However, this reasoning leaves unresolved a meaningful gap between technical compliance and the spirit of honesty required by Section II.5.a. A single prefatory notice in a lengthy qualifications document does not guarantee that evaluators — who routinely focus on individual project descriptions when scoring proposals — will connect that notice to each project listed. The Board's analysis would have been strengthened by acknowledging that the adequacy of a disclosure is a function not only of its presence but of its placement, prominence, and the realistic reading behavior of the intended audience. Government procurement evaluators using scoring rubrics are likely to assess individual project entries in isolation, meaning that a prefatory notice, however well-intentioned, may functionally fail to inform the evaluation of each project. The Board's silence on this point leaves a normative gap: the NSPE Code's honesty standard, as applied here, appears to treat disclosure as a binary condition rather than a graduated obligation calibrated to the risk of actual misunderstanding.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: III.9.
cited provision2: III.9.a.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's finding that XYZ Engineers' practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code does not fully address the institutional dimension of the firm's responsibility. Engineer B is an individual licensee, but XYZ Engineers as a firm made the deliberate organizational decision to structure its qualifications proposals in the manner described. Section III.9 and Section III.9.a impose credit-attribution obligations that apply to the professional conduct of engineers, and when a firm systematically deploys a proposal format that concentrates attribution disclosure in a single prefatory location while allowing project-level descriptions to stand without attribution, the firm bears independent institutional responsibility for that structural choice. The Board's analysis focused primarily on Engineer B's individual conduct without separately evaluating whether XYZ Engineers, as the entity submitting the proposals and controlling their format, bore a distinct and potentially higher obligation to ensure that attribution was unambiguous at every level of the document. This omission is significant because it leaves open the question of whether firms can insulate themselves from ethical scrutiny by delegating attribution decisions to individual engineers while retaining control over proposal architecture.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code, when read alongside the finding that State Z's rules were violated, exposes a structural tension in the relationship between the NSPE Code and jurisdiction-specific licensing rules. The NSPE Code's honesty standard under Section II.5.a prohibits misrepresentation of qualifications but does not specify the granularity of attribution required in multi-employer proposal contexts. State Z's rules, by contrast, impose a precise project-level attribution requirement. The fact that conduct deemed compliant under the NSPE Code can simultaneously violate a state licensing rule suggests that the NSPE Code functions as a floor — not a ceiling — for professional honesty obligations, and that engineers practicing across multiple jurisdictions cannot rely solely on NSPE Code compliance to satisfy their full ethical and legal obligations. This divergence also raises a calibration concern: if the NSPE Code's honesty standard is consistently less demanding than jurisdiction-specific rules in states with detailed attribution requirements, the Code may systematically underprotect clients and competing firms in those jurisdictions. Engineers and firms operating in multi-state markets should therefore treat the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's rules as the operative standard for proposal preparation, rather than defaulting to the NSPE Code's more general formulation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 202
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: While the Board implicitly affirmed Engineer A's reporting obligation to the State Z board by framing the State Z violation as established, the Board did not address the conflict-of-interest dimension introduced by Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers. Both states' licensing rules impose a mandatory reporting obligation on licensees who have knowledge or reason to believe a violation has occurred, and the NSPE Code similarly supports reporting of unethical or illegal practice. However, the mandatory character of this obligation does not eliminate the ethical significance of the reporter's motivation. From a virtue ethics perspective, the legitimacy of Engineer A's reporting action depends in part on whether it was motivated by genuine concern for client protection and professional integrity rather than competitive self-interest. The Board's analysis would have been more complete had it acknowledged this tension and clarified that the mandatory reporting obligation remains valid and must be fulfilled regardless of the reporter's competitive position — but that Engineer A should be transparent about the competitive relationship when filing the report, and should confine the report strictly to documented rule violations rather than using the reporting mechanism to cast broader reputational doubt on XYZ Engineers. This framing preserves the integrity of the licensing enforcement system while acknowledging that competitive motivation, though it does not void the reporting duty, is an ethically relevant factor that the reporting engineer should consciously examine.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's analysis of Engineer A's reporting obligation appropriately distinguished between State Q and State Z based on the differing specificity of each state's licensing rules, concluding that a violation was established in State Z but not in State Q. This jurisdiction-differentiated outcome carries an important practical implication that the Board did not make explicit: Engineer A's obligation to report to the State Z board is mandatory under both states' rules once Engineer A has knowledge or reason to believe a violation occurred, and that threshold was met by Engineer A's own review of the State Z rules. The Board's reasoning therefore implicitly confirms that Engineer A's decision to report to the State Z board was not merely permissible but obligatory — and that declining to report after identifying a clear rule violation would itself have constituted a breach of Engineer A's professional obligations. Conversely, the absence of a comparable violation under State Q's more permissive standard means that reporting to the State Q board would have been unsupported by the factual record and potentially inconsistent with Section III.7's prohibition on conduct that injures the professional reputation of another engineer without factual basis. This asymmetry — mandatory reporting in State Z, inappropriate reporting in State Q — illustrates that the reporting obligation is not a blanket duty triggered by competitive suspicion but a jurisdiction-specific, evidence-calibrated professional responsibility.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: III.7.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers does create a potential conflict of interest that warrants careful self-examination before initiating any reporting action. However, that competitive relationship does not nullify the legitimacy of the reporting obligation itself. The NSPE Code and the licensing rules of both states impose a mandatory reporting duty on any licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe a violation has occurred — the rules do not carve out an exception for competitors, nor do they require the reporting engineer to be a disinterested party. The competitive motivation is ethically relevant to the question of motivational integrity (see Q306), but it does not transform a genuine violation into a non-violation, nor does it relieve Engineer A of the duty to report. What the conflict of interest does require is that Engineer A act with scrupulous accuracy — neither overstating the violation nor selectively reporting only in jurisdictions where it benefits ABC Consultants competitively. The fact that Engineer A declined to report to the State Q board, where no clear rule violation was found, and reported only to the State Z board, where a specific rule was clearly breached, is consistent with good-faith application of the reporting obligation rather than weaponization of the licensing system. The conflict of interest concern is real but does not override the mandatory reporting duty when the underlying violation is genuine.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.9.
cited provision4: III.9.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: The Board's analysis focused primarily on Engineer B's individual conduct and did not separately evaluate XYZ Engineers' institutional culpability. This omission is analytically significant. XYZ Engineers, as the firm that prepared, reviewed, and submitted the qualifications proposals, bears independent institutional responsibility for the attribution practices embedded in those documents. A firm that knowingly structures proposal documents in a way that places attribution notices only in prefatory sections — while allowing lengthy individual project descriptions to function without any attribution reminder — has made an organizational decision about disclosure architecture. That decision cannot be attributed solely to Engineer B. Under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, the prohibition against permitting misrepresentation of qualifications applies to the firm as well as the individual engineer. The Board's conclusion that XYZ Engineers' practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code is defensible for State Q purposes, but the analysis would have been more complete had it separately assessed whether XYZ Engineers, as an institution, exercised adequate supervisory oversight to ensure that the prefatory attribution notice was sufficient to prevent a misleading overall impression — particularly given that the State Z rules imposed a stricter standard that the firm's proposal structure failed to meet.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.9.
cited provision4: III.9.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The prefatory attribution notice placed only at the beginning of Engineer B's individual qualification section — but not repeated within each project description — occupies an ethically ambiguous middle ground. It technically avoids outright falsification under the NSPE Code and satisfies the less specific State Q rules, but it does not fully satisfy the spirit of honesty and transparency that the Code's Section II.5.a demands. Sophisticated government procurement evaluators reading a lengthy qualifications proposal are most likely to focus their substantive evaluation on the detailed project descriptions themselves, not on a prefatory notice that may be several pages removed from the specific project narratives. A disclosure architecture that places the attribution caveat where it is least likely to be operationally noticed by evaluators — while allowing project descriptions to read as if they represent Engineer B's independent work product — creates a structural risk of misleading impressions even without any single false statement. The Board's conclusion that this practice was not unethical under the NSPE Code is defensible as a minimum compliance determination, but it should not be read as an endorsement of the practice as aspirationally ethical. The more transparent and professionally sound approach would have been to include attribution information adjacent to each project description, as State Z's rules explicitly require and as the intellectual integrity principle underlying Section III.9.a would support.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.9.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B's prefatory-only attribution disclosure does not fully satisfy a categorical duty of honesty in professional representations. A Kantian analysis would ask whether the disclosure practice could be universalized — that is, whether a world in which all engineers disclosed prior-employer project credits only in prefatory sections, while allowing detailed project narratives to stand without attribution, would be consistent with a rational system of professional trust. It would not. The categorical duty of honesty requires that representations be structured so that the audience receives accurate information at the point of decision, not merely at a point in the document where the information is technically present but practically obscured. Engineer B's disclosure satisfies a weak non-falsification duty but falls short of the stronger duty of affirmative transparency that deontological ethics demands of licensed professionals whose representations directly affect client procurement decisions. The Board's finding of no NSPE Code violation reflects a minimum compliance threshold, not a deontological endorsement of the practice.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.9.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the partial attribution disclosure practice adopted by XYZ Engineers produces a net harm to the competitive fairness of the procurement process and to the integrity of the profession, even if it does not rise to the level of an NSPE Code violation under the State Q standard. The competitive advantage gained by XYZ Engineers through a proposal structure that allows Engineer B's prior-employer projects to function as apparent independent credentials — without per-project attribution reminders — is an advantage that competing firms who provide more granular attribution do not enjoy. Firms that fully comply with the spirit of attribution requirements bear a disclosure cost (potential client skepticism about the depth of in-house experience) that XYZ Engineers partially avoids through its disclosure architecture. Over time, if this practice were normalized, it would create a race-to-minimum-disclosure dynamic that degrades the informational quality of qualification proposals across the profession. The consequentialist calculus therefore supports the stricter State Z approach as producing better aggregate outcomes for clients, competing firms, and the profession — and suggests that the NSPE Code's current standard may be insufficiently calibrated to prevent this form of structural misleading.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.9.
cited provision4: III.9.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B did not fully demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer. A virtuous engineer — one who has internalized the character traits of honesty, transparency, and respect for clients as rational decision-makers — would not structure a qualifications proposal in a way that is technically transparent at the document level but practically obscure at the project-description level where evaluators focus their attention. The virtue ethics standard asks not merely whether Engineer B avoided lying, but whether Engineer B acted as a person of good professional character would act. A person of good professional character, aware that clients reading lengthy proposal narratives may not carry forward a prefatory attribution notice into their evaluation of each project, would take affirmative steps to ensure that the attribution was visible at the point of evaluation. Engineer B's approach reflects a compliance-minimizing orientation rather than a virtue-maximizing one, and while it may satisfy the minimum threshold for avoiding an NSPE Code violation, it falls short of the aspirational standard of professional integrity that the Code is designed to cultivate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 306
cited provision1: III.7.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, the licensing regime's mandatory competitor-reporting obligation presents a genuine tension between professional solidarity and public protection, but that tension does not undermine the obligation's legitimacy. The virtue of professional solidarity — which would counsel engineers to resolve ambiguous situations in favor of colleagues rather than reporting them to regulatory authorities — is a real professional virtue, but it is subordinate to the more fundamental virtues of honesty and public protection when a genuine violation is at stake. Engineer A's decision to report to the State Z board, where a specific and clear rule violation existed, reflects appropriate motivational integrity only if Engineer A's primary concern was the integrity of the qualification proposal process and the protection of clients from misleading representations — not the elimination of a competitor. The case facts suggest that Engineer A conducted a careful, jurisdiction-specific analysis and declined to report where no clear violation existed (State Q), which is consistent with good-faith application of the reporting obligation. However, the virtue ethics framework would require Engineer A to honestly examine whether the decision to report was driven by genuine concern for professional standards or by competitive self-interest — and to refrain from reporting if the honest answer is the latter. The licensing system is not designed to be an instrument of competitive strategy, and a virtuous engineer would use it only when the public protection rationale is genuine and primary.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The counterfactual in which XYZ Engineers had included attribution notices adjacent to each project description throughout the proposal body would almost certainly have led the Board to the same conclusion of no NSPE Code violation — and indeed would have represented a more clearly compliant practice. The Board's conclusion that the prefatory notice was sufficient to avoid a violation under the NSPE Code and State Q rules rested on the finding that the notice was present and identifiable, not that it was optimally placed. Had the attribution appeared at the project-description level, the case for compliance would have been even stronger, and the ambiguity that gave rise to Engineer A's concern would have been eliminated. This counterfactual therefore confirms that the Board's conclusion was a minimum-threshold determination: the prefatory notice was just sufficient to avoid a violation, but project-level attribution would have been the clearly preferable practice. The counterfactual also reveals that the NSPE Code's honesty standard under Section II.5.a does not affirmatively require project-level attribution — it only prohibits misrepresentation — which is the gap that State Z's more specific rules were designed to close.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: The counterfactual in which State Q's licensing rules were as specific as State Z's — requiring attribution information to appear next to each individual project listing — would have reversed the Board's conclusion on Question 2 with respect to State Q. Under that scenario, XYZ Engineers' prefatory-only attribution structure would have constituted a clear violation of State Q rules, and Engineer A would have had an obligation to report to the State Q board as well. This counterfactual is analytically important because it demonstrates that the Board's conclusion on the reporting obligation is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction-specific content of the applicable licensing rules, not on the NSPE Code of Ethics alone. The NSPE Code's general prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications was insufficient to establish a clear violation in State Q; it was only the specific, granular language of State Z's rules that created the unambiguous violation triggering the mandatory reporting obligation. This reveals a structural gap: engineers practicing in jurisdictions with less specific rules receive less protection from the kind of partial-disclosure practices at issue here, and the NSPE Code does not fill that gap.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 405
cited provision1: III.8.a.
cited provision2: II.5.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: The counterfactual in which Engineer A had relied solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics — without reviewing the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of State Q and State Z — reveals a critical gap in the Code's ability to capture jurisdiction-specific professional misconduct. Under the NSPE Code alone, the analysis of XYZ Engineers' proposal practice would have been inconclusive: the prefatory attribution notice arguably avoids outright falsification under Section II.5.a, and the Code does not specify the granularity of attribution required. Engineer A would likely have concluded that the practice was ethically questionable but not clearly prohibited — and would not have identified the specific State Z rule violation that triggered the mandatory reporting obligation. This scenario confirms that the NSPE Code functions as a floor of general ethical principles, not as a comprehensive substitute for jurisdiction-specific licensing rules. Engineers practicing across multiple jurisdictions have an affirmative obligation to identify and apply the specific rules of each jurisdiction — an obligation that the Code itself acknowledges through Section III.8.a's requirement to conform with state registration laws. The case therefore stands as a practical illustration of why multi-jurisdictional practice requires jurisdiction-specific rule review, and why reliance on the NSPE Code alone is insufficient for compliance purposes.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.9.
cited provision4: III.9.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: The divergence between State Q's general misrepresentation prohibition and State Z's granular project-level attribution requirement reveals that the NSPE Code's honesty standard under Section II.5.a is insufficiently calibrated to address the specific risks of cross-employer project credit attribution in multi-jurisdictional practice. The Code prohibits falsification and misrepresentation but does not specify the structural requirements for attribution disclosures — leaving engineers and firms free to adopt disclosure architectures that are technically non-false but practically obscure. State Z's legislature and licensing board identified this gap and addressed it through specific rules requiring attribution information to appear adjacent to each project listing. The NSPE Code has not made a parallel adjustment. This divergence suggests that the Code's honesty standard, while adequate for clear cases of falsification, is not adequate to govern the more subtle forms of misleading representation that arise from disclosure architecture choices. The Board's conclusion that XYZ Engineers' practice was not unethical under the NSPE Code, while correct as a matter of minimum compliance, should prompt the NSPE to consider whether the Code's attribution provisions need to be updated to reflect the more specific standards that state licensing bodies have found necessary to protect the integrity of the qualification proposal process.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.9.
cited provision4: III.9.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Board resolved the tension between the Transparency Principle and Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity by treating document-level disclosure as sufficient to satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty standard, even when that disclosure was not repeated at the project-description level where evaluators are most likely to focus. This resolution effectively privileges formal transparency — the existence of a prefatory notice — over functional transparency — the practical likelihood that a reader will connect that notice to each individual project description in a lengthy proposal body. The case thereby teaches that the NSPE Code's minimum compliance threshold for honesty in professional representations is calibrated to the document as a whole rather than to the reader's likely cognitive path through it. While this outcome avoids finding a violation under the Code, it leaves an unresolved gap between the aspirational standard of intellectual integrity in authorship, which would demand granular attribution, and the minimum standard the Board was willing to enforce. Practitioners and firms should treat this gap as a reason to adopt project-level attribution as a best practice rather than as a ceiling set by the Board's finding.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.598999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 305
cited provision1: III.7.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The case reveals a structural tension between the Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation and the Fairness in Professional Competition principle that the Board did not fully resolve. By affirming Engineer A's obligation to report to the State Z board without separately examining whether Engineer A's competitive motivation compromised the integrity of that reporting decision, the Board implicitly treated the reporting duty as categorical — that is, the obligation to report a genuine licensing violation is not diminished or tainted by the reporter's competitive interest in the outcome. This resolution is consistent with a deontological reading of the reporting obligation: if a violation exists, it must be reported regardless of the reporter's motivation. However, the Board's silence on the conflict-of-interest dimension leaves open the consequentialist concern that mandatory reporting rules, when exercised by direct competitors, can function as instruments of competitive harm even when the underlying violation is real. The case teaches that the NSPE Code and state licensing rules prioritize public protection and regulatory integrity over the risk of competitive misuse, but that this prioritization is most defensible when the reported violation is clear and material — as it was under State Z's specific attribution rules — rather than marginal or ambiguous.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.5.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The most significant principle interaction in this case is the divergence between the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle as operationalized across two regulatory environments. The Board's analysis demonstrates that a single course of conduct — Engineer B's prefatory-only attribution practice — can simultaneously satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty standard and State Q's misrepresentation prohibition while violating State Z's more granular project-level attribution rule. This divergence reveals that the NSPE Code functions as a floor, not a ceiling, for professional honesty, and that jurisdiction-specific rules can impose materially higher standards without creating a logical contradiction with the Code. The practical teaching for multi-jurisdictional practitioners is that compliance with the NSPE Code does not guarantee compliance with all applicable state rules, and that the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation requires independent rule-by-rule analysis in each state of practice. Firms operating across state lines must therefore treat the most demanding applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard as the operative benchmark for proposal preparation, not the most permissive one, if they wish to avoid selective non-compliance. This case also implicitly suggests that the NSPE Code's honesty provisions may benefit from revision to incorporate more explicit guidance on multi-jurisdictional attribution practices, closing the gap between the Code's general standard and the more specific requirements that some states have found necessary to protect clients and competitors alike.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Avoidance Constraint Engineer A Competitor Reporting Decision
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers in the same metropolitan bridge and culvert market created a potential conflict of interest in the reporting decision, requiring careful separation of professional ethics obligations from competitive business interests.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by conflict of interest avoidance obligations from allowing the competitive business relationship between ABC Consultants and XYZ Engineers to influence either the decision to report or the manner of reporting — requiring that the reporting decision be made on the basis of the identified ethical and regulatory violations alone, and prohibiting Engineer A from using the mandatory reporting obligation as a vehicle for competitive advantage or from suppressing a genuine reporting obligation to avoid the appearance of competitive motivation.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Conflict of Interest provisions; NSPE Code Section III.2 (engineers shall not attempt to injure the professional reputation of other engineers)
sourcetext: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's assessment and reporting decision process
textreferences: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.769771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers satisfy their honesty and non-misrepresentation obligations by including prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory notice at the beginning of the qualification section, or by repeating attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers must decide how to present prior-employer project experience in qualification proposals submitted across State Q and State Z, choosing between a prefatory attribution notice placed only at the beginning of the individual qualification section versus repeating attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body.
option1: Include prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section without repeating it within each project description
option2: Include prior-employer attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body in addition to any prefatory notice
role label: Honesty in Professional Representations Obligation XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals Both States
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers disclose prior-employer project attribution only in a prefatory section of qualification proposals, or must attribution appear adjacent to each individual project description in order to satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty standard and applicable state licensing rules?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Granularity in Qualification Proposals Across State Q and State Z
option1: Include prior-employer attribution notice only in the prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualification section, without repeating attribution within each project description
option2: Include prior-employer attribution information immediately adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory notice
role label: Engineer B / XYZ Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP11
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP11
decision question: Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the licensing boards of both State Z and State Q, only State Z, or neither — and does Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers create a conflict of interest that modifies or voids the mandatory reporting obligation?
focus: Engineer A: Jurisdiction-Differentiated Reporting Obligation to State Licensing Boards Given Competitor Status and Differential State Rules
option1: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation under State Z's project-level attribution requirement, and decline to report to State Q where no clear rule violation is established
option2: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Z and State Q, treating the NSPE Code's general honesty standard as sufficient to establish a reportable violation in both jurisdictions regardless of the differential specificity of each state's rules
option3: Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to either state licensing board, on the grounds that Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor creates a disqualifying conflict of interest that voids the reporting obligation
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP12
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP12
decision question: When preparing qualification proposals for submission in multiple states with differing attribution specificity requirements, should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers apply the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's project-level attribution standard to all proposals, or may they calibrate disclosure granularity to the minimum required by each individual state's rules?
focus: Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance Standard: Whether Engineers and Firms Operating Across State Lines Must Apply the Most Stringent Applicable Jurisdiction's Attribution Rules as the Operative Benchmark for Proposal Preparation
option1: Calibrate attribution disclosure granularity to the minimum required by each individual state's licensing rules, using a prefatory-only notice in states with general misrepresentation prohibitions and project-level attribution only where explicitly required by state rules
option2: Apply the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's project-level attribution requirement as the uniform standard for all qualification proposals submitted across all states, regardless of whether each individual state's rules require that level of specificity
role label: Engineer B / XYZ Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP13
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP13
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers include prior-employer project attribution only in a prefatory section of qualification proposals, or repeat it adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Architecture in Qualification Proposals
option1: Disclose prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualification section, without repeating attribution adjacent to each project description
option2: Include prior-employer attribution notice immediately adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory section notice
role label: Engineer B / XYZ Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP14
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP14
decision question: Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing board in State Q, given that State Q's rules do not specifically require project-level attribution placement and no clear rule violation is identifiable under State Q's standard?
focus: Engineer A: Jurisdiction-Differentiated Reporting Obligation for Competitor Misconduct Across State Q and State Z
option1: Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Q licensing board after determining that State Q's rules do not specifically prohibit the prefatory-only disclosure structure
option2: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Q licensing board on the basis that the NSPE Code's general misrepresentation prohibition is sufficient to establish a reportable violation regardless of State Q's rule specificity
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP15
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP15
decision question: Should Engineer A conduct an independent, jurisdiction-specific review of the licensing rules of each state in which XYZ Engineers' attribution practice occurred before deciding whether and where to report, rather than relying solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics to assess the conduct?
focus: Engineer A: Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review Obligation Before Acting on Competitor Misconduct
option1: Conduct an independent, jurisdiction-specific review of the licensing board rules of each state in which XYZ Engineers' practice occurred before determining whether and where to report
option2: Assess XYZ Engineers' attribution practice solely against the NSPE Code of Ethics without separately reviewing the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of State Q and State Z
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP16
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP16
decision question: Should Engineer A review the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of both State Q and State Z, and report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board given that a specific rule violation is identifiable there but not under State Q's more permissive standard?
focus: Engineer A discovers that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals list Engineer B's prior-employer projects without per-project attribution, potentially violating State Z's specific licensing rules. Engineer A must decide whether to review the applicable jurisdiction-specific rules of both states and report the conduct to the relevant licensing board(s).
option1: Review the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of both State Q and State Z, report the identified violation to the State Z licensing board, and decline to report to the State Q board where no specific rule violation is established
option2: Refrain from reviewing jurisdiction-specific rules and rely solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics to assess XYZ Engineers' conduct, taking no reporting action in either state
option3: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z without differentiating between the specificity of each state's applicable rules
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.602174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP17
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP17
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers include prior-employer attribution information adjacent to each individual project description in qualification proposals, rather than disclosing it only in a single prefatory section of Engineer B's qualifications, in order to satisfy both the NSPE Code's honesty standard and the more specific attribution requirements of State Z?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers must decide how to structure attribution disclosures for Engineer B's prior-employer projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z — specifically whether to place attribution only in a prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualifications or to include attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body.
option1: Include prior-employer attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory notice, to satisfy both the NSPE Code's spirit of honesty and State Z's specific per-project attribution requirement
option2: Disclose prior-employer attribution only in a single prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualifications without repeating attribution adjacent to each project description in the proposal body
role label: Engineer B / XYZ Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.602292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A fulfill the mandatory competitor misconduct reporting obligation by reporting XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the licensing board of State Z — where a specific rule violation is established — while declining to report to the State Q board where no clear rule violation is found, notwithstanding Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor?
focus: Engineer A, a direct commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers, must decide whether to report XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal attribution practices to the licensing boards of State Q and State Z after reviewing each state's specific licensing rules and concluding that a clear rule violation exists in State Z but not in State Q.
option1: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the State Z licensing board in writing while declining to report to the State Q board, based on jurisdiction-specific rule analysis
option2: Refrain from reporting to either state's licensing board on the grounds that Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor creates a conflict of interest that undermines the legitimacy of any reporting action
option3: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z in writing, treating the NSPE Code's general misrepresentation prohibition as sufficient to establish a violation in both jurisdictions
role label: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Both States
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers fulfill their jurisdiction-specific licensing rule compliance obligation by identifying and applying the specific attribution requirements of each state — including State Z's more stringent project-level attribution rule — when preparing qualification proposals for submission in those jurisdictions, rather than applying a uniform format that satisfies only the less specific State Q standard?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers, operating across multiple licensing jurisdictions, must decide whether to identify and apply the most stringent jurisdiction-specific attribution rules of each state when preparing qualification proposals, or to apply a uniform proposal format calibrated to the less specific requirements of the more permissive jurisdiction.
option1: Apply a uniform proposal format calibrated to the less specific State Q standard, placing prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory notice without reviewing whether State Z imposes more granular requirements
option2: Identify and apply the specific attribution rules of each jurisdiction before preparing qualification proposals, tailoring proposal format to meet the most stringent applicable state requirement including State Z's project-level attribution rule
role label: Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers structure qualification proposals to include prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory section, or must attribution appear adjacent to each individual project description to satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty and transparency obligations?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Adequacy in Qualification Proposals
option1: Include prior-employer attribution notice only in the prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualification section, without repeating attribution adjacent to each project description
option2: Include prior-employer attribution information immediately adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory notice
role label: Engineer B / XYZ Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers apply the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard — State Z's project-level requirement — as the operative benchmark for all qualification proposals, or is it ethically permissible to calibrate disclosure architecture to each state's minimum rule, accepting that the same proposal structure may comply in State Q while violating State Z?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Across State Q and State Z
option1: Calibrate proposal attribution architecture to each state's minimum licensing rule, using prefatory-only disclosure where state rules permit it and project-level attribution only where explicitly required
option2: Adopt the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard — project-level attribution adjacent to each project description — as the universal benchmark for all qualification proposals regardless of which state they are submitted in
role label: Engineer B / XYZ Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, or should the reporting obligation be calibrated to the jurisdiction-specific content of each state's rules — reporting only where a clear rule violation is identifiable and declining to report where the applicable rules do not independently prohibit the practice?
focus: Engineer A: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Calibrated to Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Violations
option1: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation under State Z's project-level attribution requirement, while declining to report to the State Q board where no clear rule violation is identifiable
option2: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z on the basis that the NSPE Code's general honesty standard is sufficient to establish a violation in both jurisdictions without separately reviewing each state's specific licensing rules
option3: Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to any licensing board, citing Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor and the risk that the reporting mechanism would function as an instrument of competitive harm rather than genuine public protection
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers disclose prior-employer project attribution only in a prefatory section of qualification proposals, or include attribution adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body?
focus: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Placement in Qualification Proposals
option1: Include prior-employer attribution notice only in the prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualification section, without repeating attribution adjacent to each project description
option2: Include prior-employer attribution information immediately adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory notice
role label: Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, or limit reporting to only the jurisdiction whose specific rules were clearly violated?
focus: Engineer A: Jurisdiction-Differentiated Reporting Obligation for Competitor Misconduct Across State Q and State Z
option1: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation, while declining to report to State Q where no equivalent rule violation is established
option2: Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z on the basis that the NSPE Code's general misrepresentation prohibition applies in both jurisdictions regardless of rule-specific granularity
option3: Decline to report to either state licensing board on the grounds that Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor creates a conflict of interest that disqualifies the reporting action
role label: Engineer A (ABC Consultants)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: Should XYZ Engineers, as the firm controlling the structure and submission of qualification proposals, adopt the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard as the operative benchmark for all proposals, or calibrate disclosure architecture separately to each jurisdiction's minimum rule requirements?
focus: XYZ Engineers: Institutional Responsibility for Proposal Attribution Architecture Across Multiple Jurisdictions
option1: Adopt the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard — project-level attribution adjacent to each individual project description — as the uniform benchmark for all qualification proposals submitted across all states of practice
option2: Calibrate the proposal attribution architecture separately to each jurisdiction's minimum rule requirements, using a prefatory-only notice in states with general misrepresentation prohibitions and project-level attribution only in states with explicit granularity requirements
role label: XYZ Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.601194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Differential State Rules Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Doe Post-Termination Contradicted Testimony Reporting Obligation
type: ContradictedPublicTestimonybyUninformedPeerState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From termination of Doe's contract through the public hearing at which the uninformed engineer testified, persisting until Doe reported findings to the regulatory authority
affectedparties: Client industry
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public affected by water quality standards
affectedparties: Regulatory authority
affectedparties: Uninformed testifying engineer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision
stateclass: Contradicted Public Testimony by Uninformed Peer State
subject: Engineer Doe's post-termination obligation following uninformed peer testimony at public hearing
terminatedby: Doe's report of observations to the applicable regulatory authority (as concluded by BER)
textreferences: Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision
textreferences: Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards
textreferences: The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority
textreferences: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report
triggeringevent: Client terminated Doe's contract, instructed Doe not to write a report, and a subsequent engineer unaware of Doe's findings testified at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum water quality standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.761624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Ethical Permissibility Assessment
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingThresholdAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A (in the BER Case 02-11 precedent context) exercised the capability to assess whether filing an anonymous complaint to the licensing board satisfied professional reporting obligations, correctly determining that an anonymous complaint was ethically permissible as better than no report at all, though a signed complaint would have been preferable
casecontext: BER Case 02-11 precedent: Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct and the BER evaluated whether anonymous filing was ethical
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Filing of an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct, which the BER concluded was ethical in the circumstances
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct to the engineering licensing board
textreferences: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct to the engineering licensing board.
textreferences: a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Filing
type: AnonymousReportingAdequacyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's decision to file anonymously through BER evaluation of the complaint's ethical adequacy
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineering licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B
stateclass: Anonymous Reporting Adequacy State
subject: Engineer A's anonymous complaint to engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct
terminatedby: BER conclusion that anonymous complaint was ethically permissible and satisfied the reporting obligation
textreferences: Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B
textreferences: The BER was tasked with evaluating whether filing the complaint anonymously was unethical
textreferences: a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical
triggeringevent: Engineer A identified misconduct by Engineer B and filed an anonymous complaint with the engineering licensing board
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.761795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Licensing Board Reporting
type: CompetitorQualificationProposalMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 02-11 context referenced in the discussion: Engineer A provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B, and the BER evaluated whether filing anonymously was unethical.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct by Engineer B to the engineering licensing board, and fulfilling that obligation through an anonymous complaint — while less preferable than a signed complaint — was ethical and constituted discharge of the reporting obligation.
sourcetext: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
temporalscope: Upon obtaining knowledge of Engineer B's misconduct
textreferences: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
textreferences: On the matter of an anonymous complaint, the BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct to the engineering licensing board.
textreferences: The BER was tasked with evaluating whether filing the complaint anonymously was unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.772185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee
type: CompetingEngineeringFirmEmployeeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by licensing board review obligations)', 'employer': 'ABC Consultants', 'specialty': 'Bridge and culvert design', 'jurisdictions': ['State Q', 'State Z']}
caseinvolvement: Employee of ABC Consultants designing bridges and culverts in two states who questions the ethical and legal propriety of competitor XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices and considers reporting obligations under both state licensing boards
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'ABC Consultants'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'reporting_authority', 'target': 'State Q Licensing Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'reporting_authority', 'target': 'State Z Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Competing Engineering Firm Employee Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.755646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices provided fair competitive opportunity — recognizing that misrepresentation of prior-employer projects as current-firm accomplishments could create an unfair competitive advantage in qualification-based selection processes.
casecontext: Engineer A, as an employee of ABC Consultants competing against XYZ Engineers in State Q and State Z, assessed whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were fair and compliant with professional ethics
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Questioning whether XYZ Engineers' marketing practice was misleading to clients and unethical, implying recognition that the practice could distort competitive procurement by inflating the apparent qualifications of the competing firm
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z
textreferences: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.768089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting State Z Licensing Board
type: CompetitorQualificationProposalMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, employed by ABC Consultants competing with XYZ Engineers for bridge and culvert design contracts in State Z, identified that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals violated State Z's specific attribution rules and faced a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A had a clear obligation to report the misconduct of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers to the engineering licensing board in State Z, where the specific attribution rules were violated, notwithstanding that Engineer A's firm is a commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers.
sourcetext: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
temporalscope: Upon confirming that XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal violated State Z's specific licensing board attribution rules
textreferences: A key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.773467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting State Z Obligation Fulfillment
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingThresholdAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to assess that XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal practices met the threshold of 'knowledge or reason to believe' misconduct triggering a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board, and to act on that assessment by reporting
casecontext: Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal against State Z's specific rules and concluded that a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board arose
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Determination that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers' failure to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements constituted misconduct requiring mandatory reporting to the State Z licensing board
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment State Q
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingThresholdAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Q met the 'knowledge or reason to believe' threshold triggering a mandatory written reporting obligation to the State Q Board of Licensure, applying State Q's NCEES Model Rules-based misrepresentation standard to the identified proposal deficiencies.
casecontext: Engineer A evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Q constituted a violation requiring mandatory written reporting to the State Q Board of Licensure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Consideration of whether the proposal/marketing practice violated State Q's licensing board rules and whether Engineer A had an obligation to report to the State Q licensing jurisdiction
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.767741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment State Z
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingThresholdAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Z — specifically the failure to include per-project attribution next to each specific project listing — met the 'knowledge or reason to believe' threshold triggering a mandatory written reporting obligation to the State Z Board of Licensure, applying State Z's more specific attribution requirements.
casecontext: Engineer A evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Z constituted a violation of State Z's unique per-project attribution requirements, triggering mandatory written reporting to the State Z Board of Licensure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Consideration of whether the proposal/marketing practice violated State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring per-project attribution and whether Engineer A had an obligation to report to the State Z licensing jurisdiction
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.767914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Declines State Q Report
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Ethical Issue — Competitor Marketing Practice Assessment
type: EthicalIssue
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial questioning of the practice through resolution via NSPE Code and state rule analysis
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
stateclass: Ethical Issue
subject: Engineer A's assessment of whether XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposal practice constitutes an ethical violation
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — ethical assessment ongoing
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics
triggeringevent: Engineer A observing XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals and questioning whether the attribution practice is misleading and unethical
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.759187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Investigates Marketing Practice
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Investigates Marketing Practice (Action 4) → Differential State Rules Discovered (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReporterEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'reporting_channel': 'State licensing boards', 'anonymous_complaint_permissibility': 'Permissible but signed preferred'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A identified that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers may have misrepresented qualifications in proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, evaluated the applicable rules in each jurisdiction, and bears a reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board but not to the State Q licensing board based on the specificity of each jurisdiction's rules.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State Z Engineering Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
textreferences: Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q
textreferences: Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
textreferences: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.760736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Analysis State Q No Reporting
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed State Q's licensing board rules — which are similar to NSPE Code language — and evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' prefatory attribution notice satisfied those rules, concluding that while the presentation could have been clearer, it did not constitute misrepresentation under State Q's standards.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to evaluate XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal against State Q's specific licensing board rules and, having concluded that the presentation did not rise to misrepresentation under those rules, was not obligated to report to the State Q licensing board.
sourcetext: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
temporalscope: Upon identifying XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices and evaluating them against State Q's specific rules
textreferences: Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'?
textreferences: Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
textreferences: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
textreferences: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.772922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Analysis State Z Reporting Required
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring project-level attribution including naming the prior firm and describing the engineer's specific role, concluded that XYZ Engineers' proposal violated those requirements, and faced a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to evaluate XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal against State Z's specific licensing board rules and, having concluded that the presentation violated those rules' specific attribution requirements, was obligated to report the misconduct to the State Z licensing board.
sourcetext: The situation in State Z is different.
temporalscope: Upon identifying that XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal violated State Z's specific attribution rules
textreferences: A key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
textreferences: The situation in State Z is different.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.773107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Multi-Jurisdiction
type: LicensureBoardSelf-ReportingAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether the identified potential violations by XYZ Engineers rose to the level requiring written reporting to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, evaluating the reporting obligation independently for each jurisdiction based on each state's specific rules.
casecontext: Engineer A evaluated the mandatory reporting obligations triggered by knowledge or reason to believe that XYZ Engineers violated licensing board rules in State Q and State Z
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Consideration of whether Engineer A had an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions after reviewing the rules of both states and identifying potential violations
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.768449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment State Q
type: SolicitationMisrepresentationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A exercised the capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal attribution deficiencies rose to the level of actionable misrepresentation under State Q's rules, correctly concluding that the proposal could have been clearer but did not constitute misrepresentation triggering a reporting obligation
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal and assessed whether the attribution practices constituted misrepresentation under State Q's rules patterned after NSPE Code provisions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Evaluation of XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal against State Q's licensing board rules and conclusion that no reporting obligation arose in State Q
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
textreferences: Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
textreferences: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
textreferences: the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'?
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.775686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment State Z
type: SolicitationMisrepresentationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A exercised the capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal attribution deficiencies rose to the level of actionable misconduct under State Z's specific rules, correctly concluding that the proposal violated State Z's explicit project-level attribution requirements and triggered a mandatory reporting obligation
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal and assessed whether the attribution practices constituted misconduct under State Z's more specific rules requiring project-level attribution
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Evaluation of XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal against State Z's specific licensing board rules and conclusion that a mandatory reporting obligation arose in State Z
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The situation in State Z is different.
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
textreferences: The situation in State Z is different.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.775849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review State Q State Z
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificLicensingRuleComplianceinQualificationProposalsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A undertook a systematic review of both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices violated applicable rules in each jurisdiction.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance in Qualification Proposals Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to review and apply the specific licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z independently when evaluating XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices, recognizing that compliance with one jurisdiction's rules does not ensure compliance with another jurisdiction's more specific requirements.
sourcetext: A key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
temporalscope: Upon identifying XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices and before determining whether a reporting obligation existed
textreferences: A key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
textreferences: The situation in State Z is different.
textreferences: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.773789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review State Q State Z Capability
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A exercised the capability to identify, retrieve, and compare the specific licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z, recognizing that State Z's rules imposed more specific attribution requirements than State Q's rules patterned after NSPE Code provisions, and applying each jurisdiction's rules independently to reach differentiated conclusions about reporting obligations
casecontext: Engineer A conducted a jurisdiction-specific review of both State Q and State Z licensing board rules before forming conclusions about whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals constituted misconduct in each state
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Independent analysis of State Q and State Z licensing board rules leading to different conclusions about reporting obligations in each jurisdiction
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The situation in State Z is different.
textreferences: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
type: Multi-JurisdictionEngineeringEthicsReviewer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'jurisdictions_reviewed': ['State Q', 'State Z'], 'rules_consulted': ['NSPE Code of Ethics', 'State Q Licensing Board Rules (NCEES Model Rules)', 'State Z Licensing Board Rules']}
caseinvolvement: Reviews NSPE Code and state licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices are unethical and whether a mandatory written reporting obligation to both licensing boards has been triggered
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'reporting_authority', 'target': 'State Q Licensing Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'reporting_authority', 'target': 'State Z Licensing Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewing_conduct_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Engineering Ethics Reviewer
sourcetext: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.755834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated advanced capability to identify, retrieve, and compare the licensing board rules of State Q and State Z — recognizing that State Q's rules were patterned after NCEES Model Rules while State Z's rules had a unique legislative history imposing more specific per-project attribution requirements — and applying each jurisdiction's standard independently to evaluate XYZ Engineers' proposal practices.
casecontext: Engineer A conducted a multi-jurisdiction review of licensing board rules to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices violated professional ethics and state licensing requirements in State Q and State Z
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Systematic review of NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing board rules in both states, identification of the material difference between State Q's general misrepresentation prohibition and State Z's specific per-project attribution requirement, and application of each standard to the competitor's proposals
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.766552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificRuleStringencyDifferentialState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's decision to review both states' rules through resolution of the reporting question
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State Q Licensing Board
affectedparties: State Z Licensing Board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
stateclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Stringency Differential State
subject: Engineer A's assessment of XYZ Engineers' conduct under State Q and State Z licensing rules
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer A still assessing obligations under each jurisdiction
textreferences: The Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
triggeringevent: Engineer A discovering that State Q applies general NCEES model rules while State Z applies more specific and restrictive attribution requirements with unique legislative history
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.758607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Competitor Reporting Obligation — State Q and State Z
type: PeerCompetitorConductReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the potentially violating practice through submission of reports to both boards or determination that no violation exists
affectedparties: ABC Consultants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State Q Licensing Board
affectedparties: State Z Licensing Board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
stateclass: Peer Competitor Conduct Reporting Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to assess and potentially report XYZ Engineers' marketing practices to both licensing boards
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer A still deliberating on reporting obligation
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
triggeringevent: Engineer A reviewing XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals and identifying potential violations of both states' licensing board rules regarding attribution of prior-employer projects
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.758996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Qualification Proposals
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to apply NSPE Code of Ethics provisions and state licensing board rules as normative precedents to analyze whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices constituted an ethical violation, drawing on the code's honesty and misrepresentation provisions to reach a justified conclusion.
casecontext: Engineer A applied NSPE Code of Ethics and state licensing board rules to analyze whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were unethical and whether reporting obligations were triggered
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Systematic review of NSPE Code of Ethics alongside state licensing board rules to assess the ethical and legal propriety of XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.768246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent-Based Reporting Obligation Analysis BER 76-4 02-11
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A (and the BER) exercised the capability to identify and apply relevant BER precedents — BER Case 76-4 on post-termination environmental reporting and BER Case 02-11 on anonymous complaint ethics — to analyze the reporting obligations arising in the current case involving qualification proposal attribution practices
casecontext: The BER discussion applied BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 02-11 as precedential authority to frame the analysis of reporting obligations in the current case
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Application of BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 02-11 precedents to establish the framework for analyzing reporting obligations in the current qualification proposal attribution case
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
textreferences: BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
textreferences: In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Proportionate Characterization State Q Proposal Analysis
type: ProportionateMisrepresentationCharacterizationBeforeReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal — which included a prefatory attribution notice but did not repeat the prior-employer qualifier in each project description — constituted misrepresentation under State Q's rules, and applied a proportionality analysis to conclude it did not.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Proportionate Misrepresentation Characterization Before Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to apply proportionate and accurate characterization when evaluating XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal, distinguishing between a presentation that was less clear than ideal and one that affirmatively misrepresented facts — and correctly concluded that the State Q presentation did not rise to reportable misrepresentation.
sourcetext: Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
temporalscope: During Engineer A's evaluation of XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal
textreferences: Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'?
textreferences: Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
textreferences: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.773296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Assessment
type: QualificationProposalAttributionAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals provided attribution notices consistently throughout all project descriptions or only in introductory sections, identifying the structural deficiency that notices were not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual project descriptions.
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z to assess whether the attribution practices complied with professional ethics and licensing board rules
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that XYZ Engineers' introductory attribution notice was insufficient because it was not repeated in all paragraphs of the individual project descriptions, potentially misleading clients about the origin of Engineer B's prior work
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.766193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Regulatory Compliance Assessment — State Q and State Z Rules
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's decision to review both states' rules through completion of compliance assessment
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State Q Licensing Board
affectedparties: State Z Licensing Board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: Engineer A's determination of whether XYZ Engineers' conduct complies with State Q and State Z licensing board rules
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — compliance assessment in progress
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
textreferences: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
triggeringevent: Engineer A deciding to review NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.759424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Reports to State Z Board
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Reports to State Z Board (Action 6) → BER Precedent Applied (Event 7)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Reviews Applicable Rules
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Reviews Applicable Rules (Action 5) → State Z Violation Established (Event 6) and Engineer A Declines State Q Report (Action 7)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition
type: SolicitationMisrepresentationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to recognize that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals, while containing introductory attribution notices, were structured in a manner that could mislead clients — because the attribution was not repeated throughout the lengthy individual project descriptions — and to correctly classify this structural feature as a potential misrepresentation of facts in solicitation materials.
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals and identified that the structural placement of attribution notices — only at the beginning of sections rather than throughout individual project descriptions — created a potentially misleading impression for clients
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Identification that the introductory-only attribution notice created a misleading impression in the body of the proposal, and assessment that this practice potentially violated State Q's prohibition on misrepresentation in solicitation presentations and State Z's specific per-project attribution requirements
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
textreferences: while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.767122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A State Z Reporting Obligation
type: PeerCompetitorConductReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the State Z rule violation through the filing of a report with the State Z licensing board
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State Z licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state
stateclass: Peer Competitor Conduct Reporting Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to report Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' misconduct to the State Z licensing board
terminatedby: Engineer A's report to the State Z engineering licensing board
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state
triggeringevent: Engineer A identified that Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' proposal failed to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct under State Z rules
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.762428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer A reviewing NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing board rules before Engineer A's decision on reporting obligation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Completes Prior Projects
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Completes Prior Projects (Action 1) → Engineer B Gains Experience (Event 1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Cross-Employer Project Credit Attribution in State Q and State Z
type: Cross-EmployerProjectCreditAttributionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B joining XYZ Engineers and beginning to market services using prior project experience through resolution of attribution compliance
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prior employer of Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts
stateclass: Cross-Employer Project Credit Attribution State
subject: Engineer B's presentation of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — attribution practice ongoing and under scrutiny
textreferences: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
triggeringevent: Engineer B transitioning from prior employer to XYZ Engineers and XYZ Engineers including Engineer B's prior projects in qualifications proposals
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.758804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Gains Experience
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance State Z
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to identify and comply with State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring project-level attribution next to each specific project listing, naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role
casecontext: Engineer B prepared qualification proposals for XYZ Engineers in State Z that did not meet State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct under State Z rules
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to include project-level attribution in State Z proposals as required by State Z's specific rules, resulting in a finding of misconduct
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.775345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Maximum Clarity Attribution State Q Proposal
type: MaximumClarityAttributioninQualificationProposalsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B included prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal with a prefatory attribution notice but without repeating the prior-employer qualifier within each individual project description.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Maximum Clarity Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to present attribution of prior-employer projects with maximum clarity in the State Q qualification proposal, ensuring that the differentiation between XYZ Engineers' independent experience and Engineer B's prior-employer project experience was sufficiently clear throughout the proposal — including within individual project descriptions — even though the prefatory notice may have satisfied the minimum threshold under State Q's rules.
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the State Q qualification proposal
textreferences: Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities.
textreferences: That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
textreferences: The overall ethical question posed in this case is whether or not that credit necessarily needs to be specifically stated in each paragraph where such a project is mentioned.
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.772387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Compliance Deficiency
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated insufficient capability to identify and apply the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of State Z — which imposed more specific per-project attribution requirements than the NCEES Model Rules — resulting in qualification proposals that may have complied with a general misrepresentation standard but failed to meet State Z's specific per-project listing requirements.
casecontext: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z without identifying and applying State Z's more specific attribution requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Submission of qualification proposals in State Z that included introductory attribution notices but lacked the per-project detailed attribution required by State Z's unique licensing board rules
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.766712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager
type: Multi-StateProjectManagerMarketingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by licensing board jurisdiction)', 'employer': 'XYZ Engineers', 'prior_employer': 'Previous unnamed firm', 'specialty': 'Bridge and culvert design project management', 'jurisdictions': ['State Q', 'State Z'], 'prior_projects': 'Non-proprietary bridge and culvert projects in responsible charge'}
caseinvolvement: Newly hired project manager at XYZ Engineers who includes prior-employer bridge and culvert project experience in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, with attribution notice at the section level but not consistently throughout all paragraphs of individual project descriptions
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'prior_employer', 'target': 'Previous Engineering Firm (unnamed)'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-State Project Manager Marketing Engineer
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region
textreferences: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts
textreferences: XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.755985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration
type: Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated partial capability to calibrate prior-employer project credit — identifying the prior employer and client in introductory sections — but failed to fully calibrate the scope of permissible credit by not including per-project attribution in all project descriptions and potentially implying unconditional credit for projects contracted in the name of the prior employer.
casecontext: Engineer B, transitioning from a prior employer to XYZ Engineers, included prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in qualification proposals without fully meeting the per-project attribution requirements of State Z
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Inclusion of prior-employer identification at the section level but omission of specific role and firm attribution next to each individual project listing, as required by State Z's licensing board rules
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
textreferences: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
textreferences: Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.766956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
type: Multi-StateProjectManagerMarketingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'current_employer': 'XYZ Engineers', 'prior_employer': 'Previous unnamed firm', 'violation_finding': 'Misconduct under State Z rules; no misrepresentation under State Q rules'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, providing a general qualifier about prior employment but failing to repeat the attribution adjacent to each specific project listing as required by State Z's rules, constituting misconduct under State Z's licensing board rules.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_report', 'target': 'State Z Engineering Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Multi-State Project Manager Marketing Engineer
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm
textreferences: State Z's rules require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
textreferences: That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm
textreferences: constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.760944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Prior Employer Credit Scope Limitation State Q State Z
type: Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeLimitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, with varying degrees of attribution specificity.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to limit claims of credit for prior-employer projects to their specific personal contributions and roles on those projects, and to ensure that any such claims were accompanied by clear disclosure of the prior employer's role and Engineer B's specific involvement — an obligation partially met in State Q through a prefatory notice but not met in State Z where project-level attribution was required.
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
textreferences: With respect to giving credit to proprietary interests as referenced in Professional Obligation III.9, Engineer B's previous projects were not technically proprietary and Engineer B gave credit to both the previous firm and the clients.
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.773613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Project-Level Attribution State Z Proposal
type: Project-LevelAttributioninQualificationProposalsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B included prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal without naming the prior firm or describing Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing, in violation of State Z's specific attribution rules.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Project-Level Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated, under State Z's specific licensing board rules, to include next to each specific prior-employer project listing the name of the previous firm and a clear description of Engineer B's specific role on that project — an obligation that was not met in the State Z qualification proposal.
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the State Z qualification proposal
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.772560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Proposal Clarity Self-Assessment State Q
type: QualificationProposalAttributionAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possessed but inadequately exercised the capability to self-assess whether the single introductory qualifier 'in previous employment' was sufficiently prominent and clear throughout the State Q proposal to prevent misleading impressions about project origin
casecontext: Engineer B prepared qualification proposals for XYZ Engineers in State Q listing prior-employer bridge and culvert projects with only an introductory attribution qualifier
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Inclusion of a general introductory qualifier that was not repeated at the project-description level, resulting in a proposal that could have been clearer though did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q rules
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
textreferences: Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities.
textreferences: That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
textreferences: the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'?
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.775175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Deficiency
type: QualificationProposalAttributionAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated partial but insufficient capability to ensure attribution accuracy in qualification proposals — providing introductory attribution notices but failing to include required attribution in all paragraphs of individual project descriptions, falling short of State Z's specific per-project listing requirement.
casecontext: Engineer B, newly hired at XYZ Engineers, included prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z without meeting State Z's specific per-project attribution requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Inclusion of prior-employer identification at the beginning of the individual qualification section but omission of that notice from all paragraphs of the lengthy individual project descriptions
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:46:59.105190+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.766367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B State Q Attribution Ambiguity
type: PartialAttributionDisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the qualifications proposal through BER evaluation of whether the presentation constituted misrepresentation under State Q rules
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients reviewing the proposal
affectedparties: State Q licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm
stateclass: Partial Attribution Disclosure State
subject: Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposal presentation of projects completed under prior employment in State Q
terminatedby: BER conclusion that the presentation did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules and Engineer A had no obligation to report in State Q
textreferences: That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects
textreferences: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm
textreferences: the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'?
triggeringevent: XYZ Engineers submitted a proposal indicating Engineer B was in responsible charge of listed projects while in previous employment, but did not repeat that qualifier within each specific project description
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.762051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B State Z Attribution Non-Compliance
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificRuleStringencyDifferentialState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the qualifications proposal through BER conclusion that the presentation constituted misconduct under State Z's specific rules
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients reviewing the proposal
affectedparties: State Z licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
stateclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Stringency Differential State
subject: Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' failure to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements for prior-employer project listings
terminatedby: BER conclusion that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
textreferences: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
triggeringevent: State Z's rules specifically required that next to each project listing the previous firm be named and Engineer B's specific role be clearly described — requirements not met by the proposal
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.762240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B's prior employment before XYZ Engineers marketing bridge and culvert designs
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B's projects at previous firm before Engineer B hired by XYZ Engineers
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer B's work at previous firm before XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals listing those projects
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer Doe Client Termination with Non-Reporting Instruction
type: Post-DischargeContinuingSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From termination of Doe's contract through Doe's report to the regulatory authority
affectedparties: Client industry
affectedparties: Engineer Doe
affectedparties: Public affected by water quality
affectedparties: Regulatory authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:41.300245+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report
stateclass: Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer Doe's continuing obligation after contract termination and client instruction not to report
terminatedby: Doe's report of observations to the applicable regulatory authority
textreferences: The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority
textreferences: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report
triggeringevent: Client terminated Doe's contract and explicitly instructed Doe not to write a report after Doe concluded the manufacturing process change would not meet minimum water quality standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.762599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer Doe Industry Manufacturing Process Client Reporter
type: PublicHealthRiskReportingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'context': 'BER Case 76-4 reference', 'reporting_obligation': 'Report to applicable regulatory authority'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate a manufacturing process change, concluded it would not meet minimum water quality standards, was terminated by the client and asked not to write a report, but bore an obligation to report findings to the applicable regulatory authority regardless of client instructions.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Industry Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Applicable Regulatory Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards
textreferences: Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision
textreferences: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards
textreferences: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report
textreferences: the BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.761233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer Doe Post-Termination Environmental Regulatory Reporting
type: Post-TerminationEnvironmentalRiskReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate a manufacturing process change, concluded it would not meet minimum water quality standards, had their contract terminated, was asked not to report, and subsequently learned that another engineer unaware of Doe's findings presented a contrary view at a public hearing.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer Doe
obligationclass: Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to report their findings regarding the manufacturing process change's failure to meet minimum water quality standards to the applicable regulatory authority, notwithstanding the client's termination of the contract and instruction not to write a report, particularly after another engineer presented contradictory information at a public hearing.
sourcetext: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards.
temporalscope: Upon learning that another engineer had presented contradictory information at the public hearing, and continuing until the regulatory authority had been informed of Doe's findings
textreferences: Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision.
textreferences: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards.
textreferences: Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority.
textreferences: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.772006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Engineer Doe Post-Termination Environmental Reporting Persistence
type: DischargedEngineerPost-TerminationReportingPersistenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer Doe was obligated to exercise the capability to recognize that termination of the client contract and client instructions not to write a report did not extinguish the professional obligation to report findings regarding the manufacturing process change's failure to meet minimum water quality standards to the applicable regulatory authority
casecontext: Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate a manufacturing process change, concluded it would not meet minimum water quality standards, was terminated by the client and instructed not to write a report, while a subsequent engineer testified at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER Case 76-4 conclusion that Doe had an obligation to report observations to the applicable regulatory authority despite contract termination and client instructions to the contrary
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer Doe
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
textreferences: BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
textreferences: Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority.
textreferences: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer A ABC Consultants
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ABC Consultants competitive position
appliedto: Public client procurement decisions in State Q and State Z
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposals
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's concern that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices are misleading reflects the principle that fair professional competition requires that all competing firms represent their qualifications accurately, so that clients can make informed selections based on genuine comparative qualifications
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition is undermined when one firm's proposals create a misleading impression of experience that gives it an unfair advantage in qualification-based selection; accurate attribution is a precondition for fair competition
invokedby: Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.
tensionresolution: Fair competition requires truthful qualification representations; the competitive disadvantage suffered by firms that accurately represent their qualifications is not a justification for permitting misleading representations by competitors
textreferences: ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z.
textreferences: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states.
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.763838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Applied to Engineer B Attribution
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's obligation to be honest in qualification proposals required clear and complete attribution of prior-employer projects, including the prior firm's name and Engineer B's specific role, so that prospective clients could accurately assess the qualifications being represented
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends to the completeness and prominence of attribution in qualification proposals, not merely the technical accuracy of the information provided
invokedby: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities
tensionresolution: The honesty obligation required Engineer B to provide sufficiently prominent and specific attribution to avoid misleading prospective clients, with State Z's rules providing a concrete specification of what that obligation required
textreferences: Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm. That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.771684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Prospective public clients evaluating bridge and culvert design firms
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals represented prior-employer projects of Engineer B in a manner that may have misled prospective clients into believing those projects reflected XYZ Engineers' independent firm experience rather than an individual engineer's prior-employer experience
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations requires that the overall impression conveyed by qualification proposals accurately reflect the source and nature of claimed experience; partial or front-loaded disclosure that creates a misleading overall impression violates this principle even if technically accurate in isolated sections
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
invokedby: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.
tensionresolution: The obligation of honest representation overrides competitive marketing interests; the engineer's duty to present qualifications truthfully applies to the overall impression created by the proposal, not merely to isolated disclosures
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal.
textreferences: this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.763212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Obligation XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals Both States
type: QualificationsNon-FalsificationandNon-MisrepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory attribution notice at the section level but without consistent attribution throughout the lengthy individual project descriptions, creating a risk that prospective clients would attribute the experience unconditionally to XYZ Engineers.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: XYZ Engineers and Engineer B
obligationclass: Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
obligationstatement: XYZ Engineers and Engineer B were obligated to ensure that qualification proposals submitted in both State Q and State Z honestly and accurately represented the provenance of the referenced project experience, including clear and consistent disclosure throughout each proposal that the listed projects were completed under Engineer B's prior employment rather than under XYZ Engineers' independent direction.
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of qualification proposals in both states
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.766001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

II.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.594989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

III.9.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

III.9.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Industry Manufacturing Process Client Stakeholder
type: IndustryManufacturingProcessClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Industrial firm', 'context': 'BER Case 76-4 reference'}
caseinvolvement: The industry client retained Engineer Doe to evaluate a manufacturing process change, received an unfavorable conclusion, terminated Doe's contract, and instructed Doe not to write a report, thereby triggering Doe's overriding public reporting obligation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Industry Manufacturing Process Client Reporter'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Industry Manufacturing Process Client
sourcetext: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process
textreferences: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process
textreferences: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.761438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Intellectual Integrity in Authorship Invoked By Engineer B Prior Employer Projects
type: IntellectualIntegrityinAuthorship
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Prior-employer bridge and culvert projects included in XYZ Engineers proposals
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals without consistent project-level attribution raises questions of intellectual integrity in professional authorship — specifically whether the proposals accurately represent the intellectual and professional origins of the claimed project experience
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Intellectual integrity in authorship requires that the professional origins of claimed work be accurately represented; while Engineer B legitimately possesses the experience from prior projects, presenting that experience in a firm context without consistent attribution may misrepresent the firm's — as opposed to the individual's — intellectual and professional contribution
invokedby: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
principleclass: Intellectual Integrity in Authorship
sourcetext: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise.
tensionresolution: The engineer's personal experience is legitimately claimable, but the firm's claim to that experience must be qualified by accurate attribution of the prior employer; intellectual integrity requires the distinction to be maintained throughout the proposal
textreferences: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise.
textreferences: Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project.
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.764215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Constraint Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z
type: Multi-JurisdictionSolicitationMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B joined XYZ Engineers after prior employment at another firm; XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal listed Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a general prefatory attribution notice but did not include the prior firm's name or Engineer B's specific role next to each individual project listing as required by State Z's specific rules
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
constraintclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Solicitation Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained by State Z's specific licensing board rules to include, next to each individual prior-employer project listing, the name of the previous firm and a clear description of Engineer B's specific role on that project — a requirement that their qualification proposal did not satisfy, constituting misconduct under State Z's rules.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Z Rules of Professional Conduct (specific attribution requirements for prior-employer project listings)
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
temporalscope: At the time of submission of the State Z qualification proposal
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.773958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Applied to Multi-State Practice
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Q Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's analysis required reviewing and applying the specific rules of both State Q and State Z independently, recognizing that the same conduct could be permissible under one jurisdiction's rules and constitute clear misconduct under another's more specific requirements
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Multi-jurisdiction practice requires engineers to identify and apply the most demanding applicable standard in each jurisdiction, and to recognize that jurisdictional variation in rule specificity can produce different ethical outcomes for the same underlying conduct
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
sourcetext: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
tensionresolution: The jurisdiction-specific analysis resolved the apparent inconsistency by recognizing that different rules in different jurisdictions legitimately produce different reporting obligations for the same conduct
textreferences: The situation in State Z is different. State Z's rules in this regard are very clear
textreferences: a key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.771849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Multi-State Review
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Q licensing board rules
appliedto: State Z licensing board rules
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposals in both states
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A undertook a systematic review of both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' practices violated the applicable standards in each jurisdiction, recognizing that the two states impose materially different requirements
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineers practicing across multiple jurisdictions must assess compliance with each jurisdiction's specific rules; the more stringent State Z requirements apply to proposals submitted in State Z regardless of whether they would satisfy State Q's less specific rules
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states.
tensionresolution: Each jurisdiction's rules govern professional conduct within that jurisdiction; compliance with the less demanding jurisdiction's rules does not satisfy the more demanding jurisdiction's requirements
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states.
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z.
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.763408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificLicensingRuleComplianceinQualificationProposalsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers marketed bridge and culvert design services in both State Q and State Z, submitting qualification proposals that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects. State Z's rules were more specific than State Q's NCEES Model Rules-based provisions, requiring project-level attribution that XYZ Engineers' proposals did not provide.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
obligationclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance in Qualification Proposals Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to identify and comply with the specific attribution and misrepresentation rules of both State Q and State Z when preparing qualification proposals for submission in those jurisdictions, including State Z's more stringent requirement for project-level attribution adjacent to each prior-employer project listing.
sourcetext: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of submission of qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
textreferences: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.765207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Applied by Engineer A in State Q
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThreshold
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Q Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposal in State Q
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals under State Q's rules and concluded that, while the presentation could have been clearer, it did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's NSPE-patterned language, and therefore no reporting obligation existed in State Q
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The reporting obligation threshold in State Q was not met because the general qualifying language in the proposal, while imperfect, did not constitute misrepresentation under rules similar to the NSPE Code
invokedby: Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
sourcetext: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q
tensionresolution: The jurisdiction-specific threshold analysis resolved the tension by finding that State Q's rules did not impose a reporting obligation on Engineer A for this conduct
textreferences: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q
textreferences: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.770333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Applied by Engineer A in State Z
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThreshold
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposal in State Z
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals under State Z's more specific attribution rules and concluded that the failure to name the previous firm and describe Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing constituted clear misconduct under State Z's rules, triggering a mandatory reporting obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: State Z's specific legislative requirements — requiring prior firm identification and role description adjacent to each project listing — were not met, making the conduct clearly reportable misconduct in that jurisdiction even though the same conduct did not rise to misconduct in State Q
invokedby: Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
sourcetext: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
tensionresolution: The clear violation of State Z's specific rules resolved any tension in favor of a mandatory reporting obligation
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.770565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Constraint Engineer A State Q vs State Z
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificAttributionRuleComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed qualification proposals submitted by XYZ Engineers in both State Q and State Z; the two states had materially different licensing board rules regarding attribution of prior-employer projects, requiring Engineer A to conduct separate jurisdiction-specific analyses rather than applying a single uniform standard
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to evaluate XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal conduct against the specific rules of each individual jurisdiction — State Q and State Z — rather than applying a uniform standard, because the applicable rules varied materially between jurisdictions: State Q's rules (similar to NSPE Code) did not support a misrepresentation finding, while State Z's more specific rules clearly required per-project attribution and were violated, triggering different reporting obligations in each jurisdiction.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Q Rules of Professional Conduct; State Z Rules of Professional Conduct; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; NCEES Model Rules
sourcetext: a key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals and determined reporting obligations
textreferences: The situation in State Z is different. State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: a key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.774995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Jurisdictional Constraint Engineer A Dual-State Reporting Obligation Assessment
type: JurisdictionalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A operated in a metropolitan area bordering two states with materially different licensing board rules, requiring separate jurisdictional analysis of whether XYZ Engineers' proposal practices violated each state's specific standards — with State Z's rules being more specific and clearly violated, while State Q's rules presented a closer question.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Jurisdictional Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to assess and fulfill separate reporting obligations under the distinct licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z — which had materially different standards for solicitation accuracy and attribution — prohibiting Engineer A from treating a single report to one state's board as a discharge of the independent reporting obligation to the other state's board, and requiring jurisdiction-specific analysis of whether XYZ Engineers' conduct violated each state's particular rules.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: State Q Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct; State Z Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A assessed the reporting obligation
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.769931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Applied by Engineer A in State Z
type: MandatoryCompetitorMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
appliedto: State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: XYZ Engineers Competing Firm
balancingwith: Competitor self-interest concerns
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having identified that XYZ Engineers and Engineer B violated State Z's specific attribution rules in their qualification proposals, had a clear obligation to report that misconduct to the State Z licensing board, notwithstanding Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome as an employee of a competing firm
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The reporting obligation in State Z was mandatory once the clear rule violation was identified; the competitive relationship between ABC Consultants and XYZ Engineers did not create an exemption from the reporting duty
invokedby: Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
tensionresolution: The clear violation of State Z's specific rules and the existence of a mandatory reporting obligation under the NSPE Code resolved the tension between reporting duty and competitive interest in favor of reporting
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.771115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Both States
type: EngineeringProcurementWhistleblowerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Q Board of Licensure
appliedto: State Z Board of Licensure
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposal practices
balancingwith: Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having identified potential violations of licensing board rules by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers in both State Q and State Z, faces a mandatory obligation under both states' rules to report that knowledge or belief in writing to the respective Boards of Licensure, notwithstanding Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The mandatory reporting obligation imposed by both states' licensing rules is triggered by knowledge or reasonable belief of a violation; Engineer A's competitive relationship with XYZ Engineers does not exempt Engineer A from the obligation, though it requires careful assessment of whether the belief is genuinely reasonable rather than competitively motivated
invokedby: Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Engineering Procurement Whistleblower Obligation
sourcetext: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
tensionresolution: The mandatory reporting obligation imposed by licensing board rules overrides any reluctance to report a competitor; the obligation runs to the profession and the public, not to competitive neutrality
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.763609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Maximum Clarity Attribution Constraint Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Q
type: Prior-EmployerProjectAttributionCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal indicated Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in previous employment of another firm, but that qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects; BER found this did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules but noted the information could have been clearer
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
constraintclass: Prior-Employer Project Attribution Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained by the NSPE Code of Ethics and State Q's licensing board rules — which parallel the NSPE Code — to present attribution of prior-employer projects with maximum clarity throughout the qualification proposal, ensuring that the 'in previous employment' qualifier was sufficiently prominent and consistently placed to prevent any misleading impression of unconditional firm ownership of prior-employer work, even though the BER concluded the presentation did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; State Q Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on NSPE Code and NCEES Model Rules)
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm. That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
temporalscope: At the time of submission of the State Q qualification proposal
textreferences: Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'? The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation.
textreferences: Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities.
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm. That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.774106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review Obligation Engineer A Both States
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificLicensingRuleComplianceinQualificationProposalsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, working in a metropolitan area bordering two states, undertook a systematic review of both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were compliant — correctly identifying that State Z's rules were more specific and imposed stricter attribution requirements than State Q's NCEES Model Rules-based provisions.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance in Qualification Proposals Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A fulfilled the obligation to conduct a jurisdiction-specific review of both State Q's and State Z's licensing board rules before forming a judgment about whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were ethically and legally compliant, recognizing that the two jurisdictions imposed different and non-identical requirements.
sourcetext: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
temporalscope: Upon identifying the potential ethical concern about XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.765840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Multi-Jurisdiction Solicitation Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint XYZ Engineers Both States
type: Multi-JurisdictionSolicitationMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers operated across a metropolitan area bordering two states with materially different licensing board rules on solicitation accuracy, creating a multi-jurisdiction compliance obligation that required jurisdiction-specific proposal formats rather than a uniform approach.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
constraintclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Solicitation Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained from applying a uniform qualification proposal format across both State Q and State Z without calibrating the attribution and project description practices to the more specific requirements of each jurisdiction — particularly State Z's requirement for project-level attribution next to each listing — prohibiting the use of a single proposal template that satisfied only the less specific State Q standard when submitting proposals in State Z.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Q Licensing Board Rules; State Z Licensing Board Rules; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
sourcetext: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states
temporalscope: Throughout the period of marketing engineering services in both states
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.769010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

NCEES Model Rules (as comparative reference for State Q and State Z rules)
type: NCEESModelRules
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: NCEES Model Rules
sourcetext: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
textreferences: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
usedby: BER in comparative analysis of state licensing board rules
usedincontext: Implicitly referenced as the template against which State Q's rules (found similar to NSPE Code) and State Z's rules (found more specific) are compared, underscoring jurisdictional variation in professional conduct standards
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.760596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct
type: NCEESModelRules
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: NCEES Model Rules
sourcetext: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
usedby: State Q Licensing Board (as template); Engineer A (indirectly through State Q rules)
usedincontext: Referenced as the template upon which State Q's licensing board rules are patterned, providing the baseline standard for the prohibition on misrepresentation in employment solicitation presentations
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.755318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Professional Obligation III.9 (Credit for Proprietary Interests)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Professional Obligation III.9
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: With respect to giving credit to proprietary interests as referenced in Professional Obligation III.9, Engineer B's previous projects were not technically proprietary and Engineer B gave credit to both the previous firm and the clients.
textreferences: With respect to giving credit to proprietary interests as referenced in Professional Obligation III.9, Engineer B's previous projects were not technically proprietary and Engineer B gave credit to both the previous firm and the clients.
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer B's conduct regarding attribution of prior projects
usedincontext: Referenced in evaluating whether Engineer B gave appropriate credit to the previous firm and clients for projects completed under prior employment
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.760007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Reporting Obligation for Unethical or Illegal Practice
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (reporting obligation provision)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
usedby: BER in determining Engineer A's reporting obligations
usedincontext: Referenced as establishing the obligation to report engineers believed to be guilty of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.760130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section II.5.a (Misrepresentation of Qualifications)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Rule of Practice II.5.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, did this constitute 'misrepresentation…of qualifications' as referenced in II.5.a?
textreferences: Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, did this constitute 'misrepresentation…of qualifications' as referenced in II.5.a?
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' conduct
usedincontext: Referenced as the standard governing whether Engineer B's proposal constituted misrepresentation of qualifications by failing to consistently attribute prior projects to previous employment
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.759877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Engineer A reviews the NSPE Code of Ethics to evaluate whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal/marketing practice is misleading and unethical, and to determine professional obligations
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.754841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Non-Deception Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B Qualification Proposals
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A questioned whether XYZ Engineers' proposal format — which included attribution only in a prefatory notice rather than throughout all project description paragraphs — was misleading to clients evaluating the firm's qualifications, implicating the non-deception obligation of the NSPE Code.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained by the non-deception provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics from presenting Engineer B's prior-employer projects in qualification proposals in a manner that created a misleading impression — through selective attribution placement — that those projects were XYZ Engineers' own firm work or that Engineer B held unconditional credit for them, even if the prefatory attribution notice reflected an intent to provide transparency.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-Deception provisions; NSPE Code Section II.5.a
sourcetext: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
temporalscope: At the time of submission of qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal
textreferences: while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.769178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Partial Attribution Disclosure in Proposals
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Partial Attribution Disclosure in Proposals (Action 3) → Attribution Ambiguity Created (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Post-Termination Contradicted Testimony Reporting Constraint Engineer Doe Regulatory Authority
type: Post-TerminationContradictedTestimonyReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate whether a proposed manufacturing process change would meet minimum water quality standards; Doe concluded it would not; the client terminated Doe's contract and instructed Doe not to write a report; subsequently another engineer unaware of Doe's findings testified at a public hearing that minimum standards would be met; BER Case 76-4 established Doe's obligation to report to the regulatory authority
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer Doe
constraintclass: Post-Termination Contradicted Testimony Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer Doe was constrained from remaining silent after learning that another engineer, unaware of Doe's professional findings, testified at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum water quality standards — when Doe's own professional analysis had concluded the proposed manufacturing process change would not meet minimum standards — requiring Doe to report those findings to the applicable regulatory authority despite the client's contract termination and instruction not to write a report.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 76-4; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount obligation
sourcetext: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards.
temporalscope: Following contract termination and upon learning of the contradictory uninformed peer testimony at the public hearing
textreferences: Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision.
textreferences: Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards.
textreferences: Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority.
textreferences: The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.774827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Prior-Employer Attribution Completeness Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B State Q Proposals
type: Prior-EmployerProjectAttributionCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q listing Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory attribution notice but without consistent attribution throughout all project description paragraphs, raising questions about whether the format misrepresented facts concerning prior employers in solicitation materials.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
constraintclass: Prior-Employer Project Attribution Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained from presenting Engineer B's prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in State Q qualification proposals in a format where attribution to the prior employer appeared only in a prefatory notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section but was absent from the body paragraphs of the lengthy individual project descriptions, as such selective placement risked misrepresenting facts concerning prior employers in solicitation materials in violation of State Q's licensing board rules patterned after the NCEES Model Rules.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Q Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (NCEES Model Rules pattern); NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
sourcetext: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
temporalscope: At the time of submission of each qualification proposal in State Q
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.768676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Prior-Employer Attribution Completeness Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B State Z Proposals
type: Prior-EmployerProjectAttributionCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State Z's licensing board rules, with a long and unique legislative history, imposed specific requirements that prior-employer project listings include the previous firm's name and the licensee's specific role next to each project listing — requirements that XYZ Engineers' proposal format did not satisfy.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
constraintclass: Prior-Employer Project Attribution Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained from listing Engineer B's prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in State Z qualification proposals without including, next to each specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement in the project — as required by State Z's more specific licensing board rules — and were prohibited from claiming unconditional credit for projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Z Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (unique legislative history); NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.9
sourcetext: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
temporalscope: At the time of submission of each qualification proposal in State Z
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.768842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z
type: Prior-EmployerProjectCreditScopeLimitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Z. State Z's rules specifically prohibit unconditional credit claims for prior-employer projects and require project-level attribution. The proposals included a prefatory notice but did not provide the required project-level attribution throughout the individual project descriptions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
obligationclass: Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to refrain from claiming unconditional credit for bridge and culvert projects contracted for in the name of Engineer B's prior employer, and to limit any credit claimed to Engineer B's specific personal contributions and involvement in those projects, with explicit disclosure of the prior employer's role adjacent to each project listing in State Z qualification proposals.
sourcetext: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of qualification proposals in State Z
textreferences: Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.765686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked By Engineer A Reporting Consideration
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Q Board of Licensure
appliedto: State Z Board of Licensure
balancingwith: Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Competitive self-interest
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's deliberation about whether to report XYZ Engineers' practices to the licensing boards of both states reflects the professional accountability obligation to take responsibility for maintaining ethical standards in the profession, including by reporting known or reasonably believed violations rather than remaining passive
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability extends beyond the individual engineer's own conduct to include responsibility for the integrity of the profession as a whole; the mandatory reporting rules of both states operationalize this accountability obligation by requiring affirmative action when violations are known or reasonably believed
invokedby: Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
tensionresolution: The mandatory reporting obligation imposed by licensing rules resolves the tension between competitive self-interest and professional accountability in favor of reporting; the obligation is not discretionary
textreferences: Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.764626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Project-Level Attribution Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B State Z Proposals
type: Project-LevelAttributioninQualificationProposalsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Z that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory attribution notice at the section level but without project-level attribution adjacent to each individual project description in the lengthy individual descriptions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
obligationclass: Project-Level Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated, when listing Engineer B's prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Z, to include next to each specific project listing detailed information naming the prior employer and Engineer B's specific involvement in the project — not merely a prefatory notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section.
sourcetext: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of qualification proposals in State Z
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.764839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Proportionality Analysis Applied to State Q Proposal
type: ProportionalityinMisconductCharacterization
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Q Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposal in State Q
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER distinguished between XYZ Engineers' presentation being less clear than ideal and the presentation constituting affirmative misrepresentation, finding that the general qualifying language — though not repeated in each project description — did not cross the threshold into reportable misrepresentation under State Q's rules
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Imperfect attribution that could have been clearer does not automatically constitute misrepresentation; the degree of misleading effect and the prominence of qualifying language must be assessed proportionally against the applicable standard
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
principleclass: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
sourcetext: Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'? The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation
tensionresolution: Proportionality analysis resolved the tension by finding the conduct fell below the misrepresentation threshold, eliminating the reporting obligation in State Q
textreferences: Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'? The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation
textreferences: That might be dependent upon how noticeable the 'in previous employment' description was in the body of the proposal
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm. That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.770734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Proportionate Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment Constraint Engineer A State Q No Reporting
type: ProportionateMisrepresentationThresholdAssessmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z; BER concluded that the State Q presentation did not rise to misrepresentation and Engineer A had no reporting obligation in State Q, while the State Z presentation violated specific rules and Engineer A had a clear reporting obligation in State Z
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Proportionate Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to apply a proportionate threshold analysis when evaluating XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal — distinguishing between presentation that was insufficiently clear but did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules (which did not trigger a reporting obligation) and presentation that affirmatively violated State Z's specific rules (which did trigger a mandatory reporting obligation) — prohibiting Engineer A from treating the State Q ambiguity as equivalent to the State Z rule violation for reporting purposes.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:43.743729+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics reporting obligation provisions; State Q Rules of Professional Conduct; BER Case 02-11
sourcetext: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals in both states
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
textreferences: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
textreferences: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.774287
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Through Licensing Board Reporting
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Q Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Competitor self-interest
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The obligation to report misconduct to the engineering licensing board — even when the reporter is a competitor — is grounded in the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the licensure system, which serves as the primary mechanism for protecting the public from unqualified or misrepresenting engineering practitioners
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Reporting obligations to licensing boards serve the public welfare by maintaining the integrity of the qualification and selection process for engineering services, ensuring that public clients and the public at large can rely on the accuracy of engineering firm representations
invokedby: Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority
tensionresolution: Public welfare in maintaining licensure system integrity overrides any competitive reluctance to report a rival firm's misconduct
textreferences: There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state
textreferences: a key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.771464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Applied to Engineer B State Z
type: QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
appliedto: State Z qualification proposals
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z proposals without naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role adjacent to each project listing violated State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct by both Engineer B individually and XYZ Engineers as a firm
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:48:43.533535+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Attribution integrity in qualification proposals requires not merely a general prefatory disclaimer but specific, proximate attribution adjacent to each project description, as required by State Z's rules
invokedby: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
invokedby: XYZ Engineers Competing Firm
principleclass: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
tensionresolution: State Z's specific rules resolved the question by requiring proximate attribution; Engineer B's general qualifier was insufficient to satisfy the attribution integrity obligation in that jurisdiction
textreferences: Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.770931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Invoked By Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Q
type: QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposals submitted in State Q
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers included prior-employer projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Q with a prefatory attribution notice but without consistent attribution throughout all individual project descriptions, potentially misleading clients about XYZ Engineers' independent accomplishments
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In State Q, the NCEES-patterned rule prohibiting misrepresentation of facts in solicitation presentations requires that the overall impression created by the proposal not mislead clients about prior accomplishments; a prefatory notice that is absent from individual project descriptions may be insufficient to prevent misrepresentation
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
invokedby: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
principleclass: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
sourcetext: Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project. However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects.
tensionresolution: The professional obligation of truthful representation in solicitation materials overrides the firm's competitive marketing interest in presenting prior-employer projects as broadly as possible
textreferences: Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project. However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects.
textreferences: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.762772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Invoked By Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z
type: QualificationProposalAttributionIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposals submitted in State Z
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers failed to include, next to each specific prior-employer project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement, as required by State Z's more specific licensing rules, by relying instead on a general prefatory notice
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: State Z's unique legislative history produces a more specific rule that requires project-level attribution adjacent to each listing; a general prefatory notice does not satisfy this requirement, making the proposals potentially non-compliant regardless of the intent to provide transparency
invokedby: Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
invokedby: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
principleclass: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
sourcetext: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer', and that 'any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project'.
tensionresolution: State Z's specific rule leaves little interpretive room; project-level attribution is required and a prefatory notice is insufficient
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.762980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The central ethical and regulatory question in the case was whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal format — listing Engineer B's prior-employer projects with attribution only in a prefatory notice — constituted misrepresentation of facts concerning prior employers in solicitation materials under both states' licensing board rules.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: XYZ Engineers and Engineer B
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: XYZ Engineers and Engineer B were constrained from submitting qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that misrepresented facts concerning prior employers, employees, associates, or past accomplishments — including through selective attribution placement that created a misleading impression of unconditional firm ownership of prior-employer projects — as established by both states' licensing board rules and the NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions.
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:47:07.849740+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State Q Licensing Board Rules; State Z Licensing Board Rules; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; NSPE Code Section III.9
sourcetext: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
temporalscope: At the time of submission of qualification proposals in both states
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
textreferences: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.770099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation XYZ Engineers State Q
type: QualificationProposalMisrepresentationNon-CommissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory section-level attribution notice but without consistent attribution throughout the lengthy individual project descriptions, potentially misleading prospective clients about the provenance of the referenced experience.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers
obligationclass: Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to ensure that qualification proposals submitted in State Q did not misrepresent facts concerning past accomplishments by presenting Engineer B's prior-employer projects in a manner that could mislead prospective clients into attributing those projects unconditionally to XYZ Engineers or Engineer B without adequate contextual disclosure throughout the proposal.
sourcetext: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of qualification proposals in State Q
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.765045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Qualification Representation Standard - Engineering Proposals
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE / State licensing boards
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing accurate representation of qualifications in engineering proposals
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
usedby: Engineer A (in evaluating XYZ Engineers' conduct); Engineer B (as obligation bearer)
usedincontext: The case centers on whether XYZ Engineers' qualification statements and Engineer B's project descriptions in proposals accurately and transparently represent that listed projects were completed under prior employment, implicating professional norms against misrepresentation of qualifications
version: N/A - professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.755468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.599790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Are the proposal techniques of Engineer B ethical with respect to the NSPE Code of Ethics?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.595974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers create a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed or weighed before initiating any reporting action, and does that competitive motivation undermine the legitimacy or objectivity of the reporting obligation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: To what extent does XYZ Engineers bear institutional ethical responsibility for Engineer B's attribution practices in qualification proposals, and should the Board's analysis have separately evaluated the firm's culpability distinct from Engineer B's individual conduct?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the prefatory notice of prior-employer attribution placed only at the beginning of Engineer B's individual qualification section — but not repeated within each project description — satisfy the spirit of honesty and transparency required by the NSPE Code of Ethics, even if it technically avoids outright falsification?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: What standard of client sophistication should be assumed when evaluating whether a proposal practice is misleading — are government procurement clients expected to read prefatory attribution notices carefully, and does that assumption affect the ethical analysis of Engineer B's disclosure approach?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Does Engineer A have an obligation to report a violation to the Engineering Licensing Board in State Q?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Transparency Principle invoked by XYZ Engineers' prefatory notice conflict with the Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity principle, given that a single prefatory disclosure may create an appearance of transparency while still allowing individual project descriptions to function as misleading representations of Engineer B's independent authorship?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation conflict with the Fairness in Professional Competition principle when the engineer initiating the report stands to gain a competitive advantage from the investigation, and how should the ethics framework resolve the risk that a legitimate reporting duty becomes an instrument of competitive harm?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle when conduct that is insufficiently transparent to satisfy a stricter state rule (State Z) is simultaneously deemed not unethical under the NSPE Code — and does this divergence suggest that the NSPE Code's honesty standard is inadequately calibrated to multi-jurisdictional practice?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Intellectual Integrity in Authorship principle — which would favor granular, project-level attribution of Engineer B's prior-employer work — conflict with the Proportionality Analysis applied to the State Q proposal, where the Board found the partial disclosure sufficient to avoid an ethical violation, and does this tension reveal an unresolved gap between aspirational professional norms and minimum compliance thresholds?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill a categorical duty of honesty in professional representations by disclosing prior-employer attribution only in prefatory sections of qualifications proposals rather than at the project-description level, regardless of whether clients were actually misled?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the partial attribution disclosure practice adopted by XYZ Engineers produce net harm to clients, competing firms, and the profession — even if it technically avoided outright misrepresentation under State Q rules — when weighed against the competitive advantage gained?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer when structuring qualifications proposals in a way that was technically transparent at the document level but potentially obscure at the project-description level where clients are most likely to focus their evaluation?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers create a conflicting duty — between the obligation to report known or suspected licensing violations and the duty to avoid using the reporting mechanism as an instrument of competitive self-interest — and how should that tension be resolved when the underlying violation is genuine?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the mandatory reporting obligation imposed on Engineer A by both states' licensing rules produce better aggregate outcomes for the profession and the public when enforced even in cases where the reporting engineer is a direct commercial competitor, or does it risk weaponizing the licensing system against legitimate competitive behavior?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does a licensing regime that requires engineers to report competitors' violations cultivate or undermine the virtue of professional solidarity, and did Engineer A act with the appropriate motivational integrity — concern for public protection rather than competitive advantage — when deciding to report to the State Z board?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.596956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If XYZ Engineers had included the prior-employer attribution notice not only in the prefatory individual qualification section but also immediately adjacent to each project description throughout the proposal body, would the Board have reached the same conclusion that no NSPE Code violation occurred, or would that level of disclosure have been required to satisfy the honesty standard under Section II.5.a?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer B's prior projects had involved proprietary design concepts owned by the previous employer — would the Board's analysis under NSPE Code Section III.9 have shifted, and would XYZ Engineers' proposal practice have been found unethical even under the more permissive State Q standard?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If State Q's licensing rules had been as specific as State Z's — requiring attribution information to appear next to each individual project listing rather than only in a prefatory section — would Engineer A have had a clear obligation to report XYZ Engineers' conduct to the State Q board as well, and would the Board's conclusion on Question 2 have been reversed?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer A had filed the report to the State Z board anonymously rather than under their own name — would the mandatory reporting obligation still be considered fulfilled, and would the competitive-interest neutrality concern be mitigated or exacerbated by anonymous filing?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Question_405
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 405
question text: If Engineer A had chosen not to review the specific licensing board rules of either state and had relied solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics to assess XYZ Engineers' conduct, would Engineer A have correctly identified the State Z violation, and does this scenario reveal a gap in the NSPE Code's ability to capture jurisdiction-specific professional misconduct?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.597272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:18:09.600523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

State Q Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'State professional licensing regulatory body', 'jurisdiction': 'State Q', 'applicable_rules': 'NCEES Model Rules pattern — prohibits misrepresentation in solicitation presentations'}
caseinvolvement: State licensing board in State Q whose rules (patterned after NCEES Model Rules) prohibit misrepresentation of facts in solicitation presentations and require licensees to report known or believed violations in writing; potential recipient of Engineer A's mandatory report
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager'}
relationships: {'type': 'report_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.758040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

State Q Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.96
createdby: State Q Engineering Licensing Board (patterned after NCEES Model Rules)
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Q Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Engineer A reviews State Q rules to evaluate whether XYZ Engineers' marketing practice violates the prohibition on misrepresenting facts in solicitation presentations, and to determine reporting obligations
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.755016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

State Q Rules of Professional Conduct
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State Q Engineering Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Q Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
textreferences: The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
textreferences: With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's reporting obligation in State Q
usedincontext: Evaluated to determine whether Engineer B's proposal constituted misrepresentation under State Q's rules; BER found the language similar to NSPE Code and concluded no misrepresentation occurred, so no reporting obligation arose
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.760262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'State professional licensing regulatory body', 'jurisdiction': 'State Z', 'applicable_rules': 'Unique legislative history — prohibits unconditional credit for prior-employer projects; requires detailed attribution next to each specific project listing'}
caseinvolvement: State licensing board in State Z whose rules have a unique legislative history and impose more specific attribution requirements, prohibiting unconditional credit claims for prior-employer projects and requiring detailed attribution next to each specific project listing; potential recipient of Engineer A's mandatory report
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee'}
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager'}
relationships: {'type': 'report_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.758210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

State Z Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.96
createdby: State Z Engineering Licensing Board (unique legislative history)
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Z Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:21.244011+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'
textreferences: Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'
textreferences: The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
textreferences: any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Engineer A reviews State Z rules, which are more specific than State Q rules, to evaluate whether XYZ Engineers' practice of not including prior-employer attribution in every paragraph of project descriptions violates the requirement for detailed attribution next to each specific project listing
version: Current at time of case (with long and unique legislative history)
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.755163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

State Z Rules of Professional Conduct
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State Z Engineering Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Z Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:13.535282+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's reporting obligation in State Z
usedincontext: Cited as imposing specific, clear requirements that next to each project listing the previous firm be named and Engineer B's specific role described; Engineer B and XYZ Engineers failed to meet these requirements, constituting misconduct and triggering Engineer A's reporting obligation
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.760448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

State Z Violation Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

Transparency Principle Invoked By XYZ Engineers Prefatory Notice
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Prospective public clients
appliedto: XYZ Engineers qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Engineers' inclusion of a prefatory notice identifying Engineer B's prior-employer projects represents a partial attempt at transparency that is insufficient under State Z's specific rules and potentially insufficient under State Q's general misrepresentation prohibition, because transparency requires that material information be conveyed in a manner that actually informs rather than merely technically discloses
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:43:40.871649+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Transparency is not satisfied by a formal disclosure that is structurally positioned to be overlooked or that does not accompany the specific information it is meant to qualify; effective transparency requires that attribution appear where a reasonable reader would encounter it in context
invokedby: Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
invokedby: XYZ Engineers Competing Firm
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
tensionresolution: The intent to provide transparency expressed through a prefatory notice does not satisfy the transparency obligation when the notice is absent from the individual project descriptions that clients will evaluate; substance of disclosure, not mere form, determines whether transparency is achieved
textreferences: Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project.
textreferences: this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.763993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Engineers Competing Firm
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Private engineering consulting firm', 'services': 'Bridge and culvert design', 'jurisdictions': ['State Q', 'State Z']}
caseinvolvement: Competing engineering firm that hired Engineer B and submitted qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that are the subject of Engineer A's ethics review, whose marketing practices are assessed for compliance with NSPE Code and state licensing board rules
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:32.773954+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'ABC Consultants'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B
textreferences: ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal
textreferences: began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.757835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Engineers Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance State Z
type: Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
capabilitystatement: XYZ Engineers lacked or failed to exercise the capability to identify and apply State Z's specific project-level attribution requirements before submitting qualification proposals in State Z, resulting in a finding of misconduct against the firm
casecontext: XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Z that failed to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting firm-level misconduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Submission of State Z qualification proposals that did not include project-level attribution of prior-employer projects as required by State Z's specific licensing board rules
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:51:59.005651+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: XYZ Engineers
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
textreferences: engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.775525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Engineers Partial Attribution Disclosure in Qualifications Proposals
type: PartialAttributionDisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time XYZ Engineers began marketing bridge and culvert designs using Engineer B's prior project experience through resolution of the attribution practice
affectedparties: ABC Consultants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Prospective clients in State Q and State Z
affectedparties: XYZ Engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:40:45.978614+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
stateclass: Partial Attribution Disclosure State
subject: XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals featuring Engineer B's prior-employer projects
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — ongoing marketing practice under review
textreferences: Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
textreferences: at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
textreferences: this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
triggeringevent: XYZ Engineers including Engineer B's prior-employer projects in qualifications proposals with attribution notice only in introductory section, not in all paragraphs of detailed project descriptions
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.758428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Engineers Preferred AE Firm
type: PreferredAEFirmwithIncumbentAdvantage
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Engineering firm', 'violation_finding': 'Misconduct under State Z rules'}
caseinvolvement: XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that included prior-firm projects of Engineer B without meeting State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct by the firm under State Z's licensing board rules.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.75
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:41:30.444497+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_report', 'target': 'State Z Engineering Licensing Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Preferred AE Firm with Incumbent Advantage
sourcetext: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects
textreferences: XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects
textreferences: constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.761079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation State Z
type: QualificationProposalMisrepresentationNon-CommissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Z that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects without meeting State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct on the part of the firm.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 19
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 19
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T15:50:16.569265+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: XYZ Engineers
obligationclass: Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
obligationstatement: XYZ Engineers was obligated to ensure that its State Z qualification proposal did not misrepresent facts concerning past accomplishments by including prior-employer projects of Engineer B without the project-level attribution required by State Z's specific licensing board rules, including naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing.
sourcetext: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the State Z qualification proposal
textreferences: State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
textreferences: The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 19 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.772712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Engineers' proposal submission before Engineer A's review and analysis
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Hires Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.776933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Hires Engineer B (Action 2) → XYZ Market Entry Occurs (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

XYZ Market Entry Occurs
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

attribution notice at beginning of qualification section before individual project descriptions
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction

client termination of Doe's contract before another engineer's public hearing presentation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T15:58:57.777836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 19 Extraction