ProEthica Case 4 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.004807
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER_Case_15-12
type: BoardEthicsCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.9
createdat: 2015
createdby: Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:49.870748
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 15-12: Highway Routing and Disparate Impact
sourcetext: BER Case 15-12 discusses the tradeoffs involved with routing a highway
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Addressing disproportionate impact and creative solutions in infrastructure projects
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

BER_Case_21-7
type: BoardEthicsCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.9
createdat: 2021
createdby: Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:49.870748
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 21-7: Fossil Fuel vs Solar Panel Replacement Report
sourcetext: The BER reviewed an analogous situation in BER Case 21-7, where an engineer was asked to prepare a report discussing replacement of a fossil-fueled electric generation facility
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Analogous situation regarding complete disclosure of system reliability issues
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

BER_Case_22-10
type: BoardEthicsCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.9
createdat: 2022
createdby: Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:49.870748
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 22-10: Sustainability in Lawn Irrigation Systems
sourcetext: BER Case 22-10 also dealt with sustainability and the tradeoffs between traditional systems (in this case lawn irrigation) and sustainable options
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Guidance on balancing traditional systems with sustainable alternatives
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

BER_Case_65-9
type: BoardEthicsCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdat: 1965
createdby: Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:49.870748
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 65-9: Highway Routing Decision
sourcetext: there are several additional BER cases that discuss highway routing (BER Cases 65-9 and 73-9)
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Additional precedent on highway routing decisions
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

BER_Case_73-9
type: BoardEthicsCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdat: 1973
createdby: Board of Ethical Review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:49.870748
hasdocumenttitle: BER Case 73-9: Highway Routing Considerations
sourcetext: there are several additional BER cases that discuss highway routing (BER Cases 65-9 and 73-9)
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Additional precedent on highway routing and creative solutions
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

CausalLink_Comprehensive Risk Presentatio
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

CausalLink_Implementation Proceeding Deci
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

CausalLink_Stakeholder Engagement Conduct
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

CausalLink_Two-Approach Design Developmen
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_Agent_Instruction_Constraint
type: DiscretionaryAuthorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Defines Engineer K's decision-making boundaries based on employment role
confidencescore: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer K
constraintsource: City employment agreement and professional role
constraintstatement: When acting as City's agent, must follow City's specific instructions without deviation
enforcementmechanism: Professional ethics code and employment terms
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:11:29.464045
severity: critical
sourcetext: If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City's agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs
temporalscope: When hired as agent rather than trustee
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_Budget_Limitation
type: ResourceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Sustainable approach has significantly higher initial cost than traditional approach
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer K
constraintsource: City budget allocation
constraintstatement: Cannot exceed available budget for flood control system implementation
enforcementmechanism: City approval process and budget controls
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:38.378410
severity: major
sourcetext: the initial cost is significantly higher than the traditional approach
temporalscope: Project duration
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_ClientOverride_SustainableApproach
type: ClientOverrideState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Continuing obligation to document concerns
affectsobligation: Engineer K's duty to implement client decision
caseinvolvement: Required Engineer K to proceed with Traditional Approach implementation despite personal and professional reservations
confidencescore: 0.85
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:45.365767
hasrelatedparty: Engineer K
hasrelatedparty: Underserved community
hassubject: City
hasurgencylevel: low
initiatedat: After City Council meeting
initiatedby: City's approval of Traditional Approach despite Engineer K's preference for Sustainable
sourcetext: The City approves the Traditional Approach and Engineer K proceeds to work on its implementation
terminatedat: Ongoing through implementation
terminatedby: Not terminated
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.009894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_ClientRiskAcceptance_FloodwaterDiversion
type: ClientRiskAcceptanceState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: City's duty to protect all citizens
affectsobligation: Engineer K's obligation to proceed with client decision
caseinvolvement: City accepted risk to underserved community citing low probability and project delays
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:45.365767
hasrelatedparty: Engineer K
hasrelatedparty: Underserved community
hassubject: City
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: During City Council meeting
initiatedby: City's decision not to address floodwater diversion issue after being informed
sourcetext: The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach
terminatedat: Ongoing
terminatedby: Not terminated
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.009632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_ClimateResiliencePolicy_Infrastructure
type: ClimateResiliencePolicyState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Consider long-term sustainability
affectsobligation: Develop infrastructure with climate resilience
caseinvolvement: Influenced Engineer K's preference for Sustainable Approach
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:45.365767
hasrelatedparty: Community stakeholders
hasrelatedparty: Engineer K
hassubject: City
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: Before project initiation
initiatedby: City adoption of climate resilience policies
sourcetext: The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
terminatedat: Ongoing
terminatedby: Not terminated
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_Climate_Resilience_Policy
type: MunicipalClimatePolicy
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.9
createdby: City Government
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:05:11.025473
hasdocumenttitle: City Infrastructure Climate Resilience Policy
sourcetext: The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
usedby: Engineer K
usedincontext: Referenced as guiding principle for flood control system design
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_Council_Flood_Project_Decision
type: CityCouncilMeetingMinutes
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: City Council
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:05:11.025473
hasdocumenttitle: City Council Meeting Minutes - Flood Control Project Approval
sourcetext: The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach...The City approves the Traditional Approach
usedby: City Leadership and Engineer K
usedincontext: Official record of project approach selection and approval
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

City_TrusteeDiscretion_FloodControlProject
type: TrusteeDiscretionState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Allow Engineer K to develop solutions
affectsobligation: Make informed final decision
affectsobligation: Trust Engineer K's professional judgment
caseinvolvement: Establishes trust-based relationship allowing Engineer K to develop designs
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:13.901134
hasrelatedparty: City residents
hasrelatedparty: Engineer K
hasrelatedparty: Underserved community
hassubject: City
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: Contract initiation with Engineer K
initiatedby: City's decision to grant Engineer K discretionary authority
sourcetext: the City trusts that Engineer K will do the job as if they were doing it themselves
terminatedat: When selecting final design approach
terminatedby: City exercising decision-making authority
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ClientAccountability_Respect
type: FaithfulAgencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Post-decision implementation phase
balancedwith: Personal preference for sustainability
balancedwith: Professional judgment
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Clarifies Engineer K's role after City makes its choice
hasconcreteexpression: These officials serve at the will of the people and are ultimately accountable to the people for their decisions. Engineer K should respect that accountability
hasinterpretation: Engineer must respect democratic accountability and client autonomy
hastensionresolution: Accept and implement City's decision after providing professional advice
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ClimateResilience_CityPolicy
type: ClimateResiliencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Flood control system design
appliedto: Infrastructure development policy
balancedwith: Implementation timeline
balancedwith: Upfront costs
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:07:26.303563
hascaserelevance: Establishes policy context that conflicts with final decision
hasconcreteexpression: The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
hasinterpretation: Infrastructure must be designed to withstand and adapt to climate change impacts
hastensionresolution: City ultimately prioritizes immediate cost savings over long-term resilience
invokedby: City
sourcetext: The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Climate_Resilience_Policy
type: ClimatePolicyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City requires infrastructure projects to consider climate change impacts
confidencescore: 0.85
constrainedentity: Infrastructure design
constraintsource: City climate policies
constraintstatement: New infrastructure must incorporate climate change resilience
enforcementmechanism: City policy compliance review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:38.378410
severity: major
sourcetext: The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
temporalscope: Design and implementation phases
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Complete_Disclosure_Constraint
type: ProceduralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Requires presenting both traditional and sustainable approaches completely
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer K
constraintsource: NSPE Code section II.3.a
constraintstatement: Must include all relevant and pertinent information in reports including advantages and disadvantages
enforcementmechanism: Professional review and potential ethics violations
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:11:29.464045
severity: major
sourcetext: shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
temporalscope: During reporting and recommendation phase
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee, this obligation extends to ongoing stewardship responsibilities throughout the project lifecycle. The faithful agent duty requires Engineer K to continuously monitor whether the Traditional Approach remains aligned with the City's stated Climate Resilience Policy, particularly as new information emerges about environmental impacts on underserved communities. This creates a dynamic obligation that may require Engineer K to proactively communicate policy inconsistencies to the City, even after the decision has been made.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
extraction reasoning: This extends the Board's conclusion about faithful agent obligations by examining the temporal dimension and policy consistency requirements that continue beyond the initial decision point.
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Because Engineer K has entered into a contract to design the new flood water control system, Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.f.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to the implicit question about environmental justice disclosure obligations (Q101), Engineer K had a clear ethical duty to transparently communicate the disproportionate impact on underserved communities during stakeholder meetings. The discovery of this impact after the meetings created a retroactive disclosure obligation under both the public welfare paramount duty and the dignity and fairness treatment principle. Engineer K should have immediately convened additional stakeholder sessions or formal communications to ensure affected communities could meaningfully participate in the decision-making process, as environmental justice considerations are integral to public welfare protection in infrastructure projects.
conclusion type: question_response
extraction reasoning: This addresses analytical question Q101 about environmental justice disclosure timing and obligations, grounding the response in specific ethical principles and obligations from the extracted ontology.
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: III.1.f.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Addressing the theoretical question about virtue ethics (Q303), Engineer K's continuation with the Traditional Approach after the City's decision represents a complex virtue ethics scenario where professional integrity requires balancing competing virtues. While practical wisdom (phronesis) suggests respecting legitimate client authority demonstrates the virtue of fidelity, the virtue of justice demands ongoing advocacy for vulnerable communities affected by the decision. The virtuous engineer in this situation would continue implementation while simultaneously exercising the virtue of courage by documenting concerns and proposing mitigation measures for environmental justice impacts, thus maintaining integrity without abandoning professional stewardship responsibilities.
conclusion type: question_response
extraction reasoning: This responds to theoretical question Q303 about virtue ethics by analyzing how professional virtues can be maintained even when implementing a suboptimal decision from an environmental justice perspective.
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.021622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between FaithfulAgent_CityTrust and PublicWelfare_FloodControl_Primary reveals a sophisticated principle hierarchy where faithful agency does not require abandoning public welfare advocacy, but rather channeling it through appropriate professional mechanisms. This case demonstrates that when client decisions potentially compromise long-term public welfare, the engineer's faithful agent duty transforms from simple compliance to active stewardship—ensuring the client fully understands ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies. The resolution suggests that faithful agency and public welfare protection are complementary rather than competing principles when the engineer maintains transparency and continues professional advocacy within the client relationship.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
extraction reasoning: This synthesizes the central principle tension in the case by showing how faithful agency and public welfare can be reconciled through transformed professional stewardship rather than simple compliance.
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.008152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: III.2.d.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The interaction between Sustainability_EngineerK_Belief and Objectivity_Reporting demonstrates that professional objectivity does not require engineers to suppress their technical judgment, but rather to channel personal expertise through rigorous analytical frameworks. Engineer K's belief in the Sustainable Approach, grounded in professional competence in climate resilience and environmental impact assessment, represents informed technical judgment rather than mere personal preference. The case shows that objectivity is achieved not by eliminating professional judgment, but by ensuring that such judgment is transparently communicated, thoroughly documented, and presented alongside comprehensive analysis of alternatives—allowing clients to benefit from engineering expertise while maintaining decision-making authority.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
extraction reasoning: This synthesizes how professional judgment and objectivity interact, showing that technical expertise should inform rather than compromise objective reporting.
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Contract_Influence_Prohibition
type: LegalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Prevents Engineer K from improperly advocating for sustainable solution after decision
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer K
constraintsource: NSPE Code section II.5.b
constraintstatement: Cannot attempt to influence the award of a contract by public authority
enforcementmechanism: Professional ethics board review and sanctions
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:11:29.464045
severity: critical
sourcetext: an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority would be a violation of Code section II.5.b
temporalscope: Throughout engagement with City
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

CreativeThinking_Impact
type: DistributiveJusticePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Addressing disproportionate impacts
balancedwith: Budget constraints
balancedwith: Standard solutions
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Directs Engineer K to find ways to protect vulnerable communities
hasconcreteexpression: This type of creative thinking is incumbent on Engineer K and their team when considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community
hasinterpretation: Engineers must seek creative solutions to minimize disparate impacts
hastensionresolution: Explore hybrid solutions combining traditional and sustainable approaches
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: How should Engineer K balance faithful agent duties to the City against public welfare obligations when the City's choice may not optimize long-term flood protection and creates disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities?
focus: Engineer K's obligation to balance faithful agency to the City with public welfare protection when the Traditional Approach may compromise long-term flood control effectiveness and environmental justice
option1: Continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
option2: Refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
role label: Engineer K
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer K have disclosed the disproportionate impact on underserved communities during stakeholder meetings, and what obligation exists to address this discovery retroactively?
focus: Engineer K's obligation to ensure transparent communication of environmental justice impacts discovered after stakeholder meetings
option1: Immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
option2: Limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
role label: Engineer K
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer K have only presented information about the Sustainable Approach given personal professional belief in its superiority, and how should technical expertise be balanced with objective presentation?
focus: Engineer K's obligation to present alternatives objectively while incorporating professional judgment about climate resilience and sustainability
option1: Present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
option2: Present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
role label: Engineer K
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: What ethical obligations does Engineer K have when the City's decision appears to contradict its own climate resilience policy, and should the engineer raise this inconsistency?
focus: Engineer K's obligation to address policy inconsistencies when the City's decision contradicts its own climate resilience policy
option1: Proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
option2: Respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
role label: Engineer K
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer K explore creative hybrid solutions that combine elements of both approaches, and what obligation exists to propose innovative alternatives beyond the binary choice presented?
focus: Engineer K's obligation to explore innovative solutions beyond the binary choice when significant community and environmental impacts are discovered
option1: Develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
option2: Limit work to the two originally presented approaches
role label: Engineer K
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Dignity_Fairness_Treatment
type: ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Consideration of underserved community impacts
balancedwith: Economic efficiency
balancedwith: Political pressures
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Requires consideration of flood impacts on underserved community
hasconcreteexpression: professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination
hasinterpretation: Design must consider impacts on all affected communities equitably
hastensionresolution: Actively address disproportionate impacts through creative solutions
invokedby: NSPE Code of Ethics
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_BinaryDecisionConstraint_TraditionalVsSustainable
type: BinaryDecisionConstraintState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Consider mitigation measures for underserved community
affectsobligation: Explore combination approaches
affectsobligation: Think beyond either/or framing
caseinvolvement: Initially limited thinking to two options before recognizing need for creative combinations
confidencescore: 0.85
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:13.901134
hasrelatedparty: City
hasrelatedparty: Underserved community affected by flooding
hassubject: Engineer K
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: Early design phase
initiatedby: Initial problem framing as choice between traditional and sustainable approaches
sourcetext: analysis of whether some combination of the traditional approach (with a quick solution to the flooding problems) be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community
terminatedat: After reviewing BER precedents about creative thinking
terminatedby: Recognition of need for creative hybrid solutions
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_ClimateResilience
type: ClimateResilienceDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Design infrastructure with climate change resilience
casecontext: Developing solutions that account for climate change impacts
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Identification of sustainable approach incorporating climate considerations
enablesobligations: Create resilient infrastructure balancing immediate and long-term needs
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:09:20.755667
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: create a resilient infrastructure that balances immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability
temporalaspect: During design phase
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_ClimateResilience_001
type: ClimateResilienceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K evaluated both approaches for climate resilience and future expandability per City policies
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.85
derivedfrom: City climate policies
enforcementcontext: City infrastructure development policies
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:05.229908
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Design flood control infrastructure with climate change resilience and future expandability in mind
sourcetext: The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
temporalscope: Throughout design process
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_Competence_001
type: CompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K as licensed PE designed flood control system within expertise
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: NSPE II.2 - competence requirement
enforcementcontext: Professional licensing requirements
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:05.229908
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Design flood control systems only within area of professional competence
sourcetext: Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system
temporalscope: Throughout design and implementation
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_CompletePresentation_Alternatives
type: CompleteAlternativesPresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Two flood control options identified for City consideration
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: Professional best practices
enforcementcontext: Client satisfaction and professional review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Present both traditional and sustainable approaches completely with advantages and disadvantages
sourcetext: Each should be presented completely, and the advantages and disadvantages of each should be included
temporalscope: During design presentation phase
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_ComprehensiveReporting
type: TechnicalWritingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Prepare complete technical reports with all relevant information
casecontext: Documenting both traditional and sustainable approaches completely
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Presenting advantages and disadvantages of each design option
enablesobligations: Be objective and truthful in professional reports (Code II.3.a)
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:12:20.226157
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Each should be presented completely, and the advantages and disadvantages of each should be included
temporalaspect: During reporting phase to City
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_CreativeSolutioning
type: SolutionSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Develop creative hybrid solutions combining multiple approaches
casecontext: Creating combinations of traditional quick solutions with sustainable provisions for underserved areas
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Considering combinations of traditional and sustainable provisions
enablesobligations: Harmonize multiple code provisions when developing solutions
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:12:20.226157
possessedby: Engineer K and team
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: some combination of the traditional approach...be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community
temporalaspect: During solution development phase
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_Creative_Solutions
type: CreativeSolutionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Combine traditional and sustainable approaches creatively
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.8
derivedfrom: Professional excellence standards
enforcementcontext: Peer review and best practices
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K and team
obligationstatement: Think creatively beyond binary solutions for flood control impacts
sourcetext: This type of creative thinking is incumbent on Engineer K and their team
temporalscope: During solution development
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_Disclosure_001
type: DisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K presented complete information about both approaches including identified risks at City Council meeting
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE II.3.a - duty to inform stakeholders
enforcementcontext: Professional engineering standards
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:05.229908
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Present all available information about risks and benefits of both design approaches to City leadership
sourcetext: Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach
temporalscope: During City Council meeting
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_Disclosure_ProjectSuccess
type: DisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Must inform about non-functional design risks
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: NSPE Code III.1.b
enforcementcontext: Professional conduct review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Advise City if project will not be successful
sourcetext: obligation to advise a client or employer if a project will not be successful under Code section III.1.b
temporalscope: When risks identified
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_DisparateImpact_Underserved
type: DisparateImpactConsiderationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Consider mitigation for vulnerable community areas
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.85
derivedfrom: NSPE Code III.1.f
enforcementcontext: Equity review and community impact assessment
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Address disproportionate flooding impact on underserved community
sourcetext: considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community
temporalscope: During design development
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_DisproportionateImpactDiscovery_UnderservedCommunity
type: DisproportionateImpactDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Duty to disclose risks to vulnerable populations
affectsobligation: Obligation to present complete information
caseinvolvement: Led to full disclosure of risks but City chose to proceed anyway
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:45.365767
hasrelatedparty: City leadership
hasrelatedparty: Underserved community
hassubject: Engineer K
hasurgencylevel: high
initiatedat: While working on the report
initiatedby: Discovery during information gathering that Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters
sourcetext: Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community
terminatedat: During City Council meeting
terminatedby: Disclosure to City leadership at Council meeting
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.009518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_EnvironmentalJustice
type: EnvironmentalJusticeAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Identify disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities
casecontext: Discovered potential impacts on underserved community
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Discovery and analysis of flood diversion impacts
enablesobligations: Protect underserved communities from disproportionate environmental harm
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:09:20.755667
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
temporalaspect: During information gathering phase
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_EnvironmentalJustice_001
type: EnvironmentalJusticeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K discovered and reported that Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to underserved neighborhood
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: Professional ethics and equity principles
enforcementcontext: Professional ethical standards
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:05.229908
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Identify and report disproportionate impacts on underserved communities from flood control designs
sourcetext: Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community
temporalscope: During design evaluation phase
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_FaithfulAgent_City
type: FaithfulAgencyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K hired with discretion to design flood control system
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Code
enforcementcontext: Professional engineering board review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Act as faithful agent or trustee for the City in flood control system design
sourcetext: Engineer K, as a professional engineer, has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee
temporalscope: Throughout engagement with City
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_FiduciaryNavigation
type: Agency-TrusteeDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Navigate between agent and trustee roles appropriately
casecontext: Exercising professional judgment in design phase, then implementing City's chosen option
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Acting with discretion during design, following City decision after selection
enablesobligations: Act as faithful agent or trustee (Code II.1)
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:12:20.226157
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Once the decision is made, Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials
temporalaspect: Throughout project lifecycle
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_FloodControlDesign
type: TechnicalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Design flood control systems for urban areas
casecontext: Hired specifically to design new flood control system
confidence: 1.0
demonstratedthrough: Licensed professional engineer status and project assignment
enablesobligations: Design safe and effective flood protection infrastructure
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:09:20.755667
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system
temporalaspect: Throughout project duration
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_ImpactAssessment
type: StakeholderImpactAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Assess disproportionate impacts on underserved communities
casecontext: Considering how flood control approaches affect underserved communities differently
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Analysis of flood control impacts on different community segments
enablesobligations: Treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination (Code III.1.f)
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:12:20.226157
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community
temporalaspect: During design evaluation phase
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_InfrastructureDesignChoice_FloodControl
type: InfrastructureDesignChoiceState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Balance cost and effectiveness
affectsobligation: Consider sustainability per City policies
affectsobligation: Present both options objectively
caseinvolvement: Required Engineer K to evaluate and present both Traditional and Sustainable approaches despite personal preference
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:45.365767
hasrelatedparty: City
hasrelatedparty: Environmental organizations
hasrelatedparty: Underserved community
hassubject: Engineer K
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: During initial design phase
initiatedby: Initial design phase identification of two viable approaches
sourcetext: During the initial design phase, Engineer K identifies two potential approaches
terminatedat: After City Council meeting
terminatedby: City's decision to approve Traditional Approach
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.009402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_MultiCriteriaAnalysis
type: Multi-CriteriaInfrastructureAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Analyze infrastructure alternatives across multiple dimensions
casecontext: Evaluated two approaches considering multiple factors
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Comprehensive comparison of traditional and sustainable approaches
enablesobligations: Provide comprehensive analysis for informed decision-making
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:09:20.755667
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer K identifies two potential approaches, both of which could be successfully designed
temporalaspect: During initial design phase
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_PostDecisionAgency_CityDecision
type: Post-DecisionAgencyState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Follow City's decision faithfully
affectsobligation: Not influence contract awards based on personal preference
affectsobligation: Respect democratic accountability of officials
caseinvolvement: Defines Engineer K's role after City chooses between design alternatives
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:13.901134
hasrelatedparty: City officials
hasrelatedparty: Public served by elected officials
hassubject: Engineer K
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: When City makes decision after reviewing alternatives
initiatedby: City officials making final decision on flood control approach
sourcetext: Engineer K should respect that accountability and not be motivated by self-interest in a sustainable solution if the City decides against it
terminatedat: Not specified in case
terminatedby: Project completion or contract end
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_Reporting_Truthfulness
type: ReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Reporting on flood control design options
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE Code II.3.a
enforcementcontext: Professional standards review
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Be objective and truthful in professional reports with all relevant information
sourcetext: Engineer K shall be objective and truthful in their professional reports, statements, or testimony
temporalscope: When preparing reports
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_RespectDecision_City
type: FaithfulAgencyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Respect City officials' accountability to the people
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 0.9
derivedfrom: NSPE Code II.5.b
enforcementcontext: Professional conduct enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Follow City's decision once made and not be motivated by self-interest
sourcetext: Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials
temporalscope: After City makes decision
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_Safety_001
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K designed flood control system to protect urban area from severe flooding
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: NSPE I.1 - paramount duty to public safety
enforcementcontext: Professional engineering code enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:05.229908
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Hold paramount the safety of the public including protection from flooding risks
sourcetext: design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area that has experienced increasingly severe flooding
temporalscope: Throughout project lifecycle
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_Safety_FloodControl
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Primary goal of flood control system design
compliancestatus: pending
confidencescore: 1.0
derivedfrom: NSPE Code I.1
enforcementcontext: Professional standards enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:59.703994
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Design flood control system to protect public health, safety, and welfare
sourcetext: the goal of the completed system will be to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
temporalscope: During design and implementation
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_StakeholderEngagement
type: StakeholderEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Facilitate and synthesize stakeholder feedback
casecontext: Held meetings with community and environmental organizations
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Conducting stakeholder meetings and gathering feedback
enablesobligations: Incorporate community input into engineering decisions
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:09:20.755667
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach
temporalaspect: During project development process
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_StakeholderEngagement_001
type: StakeholderEngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K conducted stakeholder meetings where community members and organizations provided input on design approaches
compliancestatus: met
confidencescore: 0.95
derivedfrom: City directive and professional practice standards
enforcementcontext: City project development process requirements
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:05.229908
obligatedparty: Engineer K
obligationstatement: Hold stakeholder meetings and gather feedback on flood control project approaches
sourcetext: As part of the project development process, the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback
temporalscope: During project development phase
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Obligations Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_SustainabilityIntegration
type: TechnologyIntegrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Integrate sustainable development principles into engineering designs
casecontext: Presenting both traditional and sustainable flood control options
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Developing sustainable approach alternative alongside traditional approach
enablesobligations: Adhere to principles of sustainable development (Code III.2.d)
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:12:20.226157
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer K has identified two options for the City to consider—the traditional approach and the sustainable approach
temporalaspect: Throughout design development process
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_TechnicalWriting
type: TechnicalWritingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilitystatement: Prepare comprehensive technical reports and presentations
casecontext: Presented risks and benefits of both approaches
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Presenting information to City Council
enablesobligations: Communicate technical information to decision-makers
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:09:20.755667
possessedby: Engineer K
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach
temporalaspect: During City Council meeting
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EngineerK_TrusteeDiscretion_FloodControlDesign
type: TrusteeDiscretionState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Act as if doing job for themselves
affectsobligation: Include all advantages and disadvantages
affectsobligation: Present both traditional and sustainable options completely
caseinvolvement: Establishes Engineer K's responsibility to fully develop and present both design alternatives
confidencescore: 0.95
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:13.901134
hasrelatedparty: City
hasrelatedparty: Underserved community
hasrelatedparty: Urban area residents
hassubject: Engineer K
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: Beginning of design phase
initiatedby: City hiring Engineer K with discretion to develop flood control design
sourcetext: During the design phase, the City trusts Engineer K to develop a design
terminatedat: End of design phase when City chooses approach
terminatedby: City making final decision between design options
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Engineer Intern Wasser
type: EngineerRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Referenced from BER Case 22-10 as example of engineer offering sustainable alternatives
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:05:26.616127
hasactiveobligation: Harmonize code provisions
hasactiveobligation: Introduce and offer sustainable alternatives
hasactiveobligation: Serve the client and company
hasethicaltension: Balancing client service with sustainable development principles
hasstatus: intern
hastitle: Engineer Intern
sourcetext: Engineer Intern Wasser (an important player in BER Case 22-10) "could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client
wasattributedto: Case 4 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Engineer K
type: EngineerRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Hired to design flood control system, identified two approaches, conducted stakeholder meetings, discovered environmental justice issue, presented findings to City Council, proceeds with Traditional Approach despite concerns
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:00.796069
hasactiveobligation: Balance immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability
hasactiveobligation: Design flood control system
hasactiveobligation: Gather feedback on project
hasactiveobligation: Hold stakeholder meetings
hasactiveobligation: Present information to City leadership
hasactiveobligation: Promote sustainability and resilience
hasethicaltension: Knowledge of disproportionate impact on underserved community versus proceeding with approved Traditional Approach
hasethicaltension: Personal belief in Sustainable Approach versus City's decision for Traditional Approach
hasethicaltension: Professional obligation to promote sustainability versus implementing lower-cost Traditional Approach
hasexperience: None
haslicense: licensed professional engineer
hasspecialization: flood control system design
hastitle: Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area
wasattributedto: Case 4 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

EnvironmentalJustice_Flooding
type: EnvironmentalJusticePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Impact assessment of Traditional Approach
balancedwith: Cost considerations
balancedwith: Probability assessments
balancedwith: Project timeline
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:07:26.303563
hascaserelevance: Highlights ethical tension between efficiency and equitable protection
hasconcreteexpression: Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
hasinterpretation: Engineering solutions should not unfairly burden vulnerable communities with environmental risks
hastensionresolution: City dismisses concern based on low probability despite disproportionate impact
invokedby: Engineer K (through discovery and reporting)
sourcetext: Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

FaithfulAgent_CityTrust
type: FaithfulAgencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer K's relationship with the City
balancedwith: Professional judgment
balancedwith: Public welfare
balancedwith: Sustainability
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Defines the scope of Engineer K's authority and obligations
hasconcreteexpression: Engineer K, as a professional engineer, has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee
hasinterpretation: Engineer K must balance professional discretion with loyalty to client objectives
hastensionresolution: Exercise professional judgment in design phase, respect City's final decision in implementation
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Flood_Control_Stakeholder_Feedback_Record
type: StakeholderMeetingRecord
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.85
createdby: Engineer K/Project Team
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:05:11.025473
hasdocumenttitle: Flood Control Project Stakeholder Meeting Feedback
sourcetext: During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach...other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach
usedby: Engineer K and City Leadership
usedincontext: Documented community preferences between Traditional and Sustainable approaches
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

II.5.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

III.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

III.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

III.2.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.008003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Implementation_Timeline_Constraint
type: ResourceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Green infrastructure requires several years to fully mature before optimal protection
confidencescore: 0.85
constrainedentity: Flood control project
constraintsource: City urgency requirements
constraintstatement: System must provide flood protection within acceptable timeframe
enforcementmechanism: Project deadlines and community protection needs
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:38.378410
severity: major
sourcetext: the system requires several years to fully mature before offering optimal protection
temporalscope: Several years for green infrastructure to mature
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

InformedDecision_SolarCase
type: InformedDecision-MakingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Presentation of design alternatives
balancedwith: Advocacy for preferred solution
balancedwith: Simplicity of presentation
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Establishes precedent for comprehensive disclosure of tradeoffs
hasconcreteexpression: The discussion of this case noted the ethical objective of an informed policy and project decision making process
hasinterpretation: Engineers must provide complete information including potential drawbacks
hastensionresolution: Include all relevant information even if it complicates decision
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Current
type: ProfessionalEthicsCode
type: NamedIndividual
confidencescore: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:06:49.870748
hasdocumenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics
hasversion: Current version with Fundamental Canons
sourcetext: reviewing the Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code)
usedby: Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Framework for analyzing Engineer K's obligations regarding flood control system design
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.010989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Objectivity_Reporting
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Design reporting and recommendations
balancedwith: Client preferences
balancedwith: Professional advocacy
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Ensures City receives complete information for decision-making
hasconcreteexpression: Engineer K shall be objective and truthful in their professional reports, statements, or testimony
hasinterpretation: All relevant information must be included without bias
hastensionresolution: Present both options completely with advantages and disadvantages
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Post_Decision_Implementation_Constraint
type: PoliticalAccountabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K cannot override City's decision even if preferring sustainable solution
confidencescore: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer K
constraintsource: Democratic accountability principles and Code II.5.b
constraintstatement: Must implement City's chosen solution regardless of personal preference for sustainable option
enforcementmechanism: Professional ethics code enforcement
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:11:29.464045
severity: critical
sourcetext: Once the decision is made, Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials
temporalscope: After City makes final decision
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.014807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Professional_Engineering_License
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer K is a licensed professional engineer
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer K
constraintsource: Professional licensing requirements
constraintstatement: Must maintain professional engineering license and work within scope of expertise
enforcementmechanism: Professional licensing board
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:38.378410
severity: critical
sourcetext: Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer
temporalscope: Entire project duration
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

PublicWelfare_FloodControl_Primary
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: flood control system design
balancedwith: Cost considerations
balancedwith: Environmental sustainability
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Establishes the fundamental purpose and constraint for all design alternatives
hasconcreteexpression: the goal of the completed system will be to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
hasinterpretation: Public welfare is the primary objective of the flood control project
hastensionresolution: Public welfare sets the baseline requirement that all design options must meet
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

PublicWelfare_FloodProtection
type: PublicWelfarePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Overall flood control system design objectives
balancedwith: Cost constraints
balancedwith: Stakeholder preferences
balancedwith: Timeline pressures
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:07:26.303563
hascaserelevance: Frames the fundamental ethical challenge of the case
hasconcreteexpression: create a resilient infrastructure that balances immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability
hasinterpretation: Public welfare requires both immediate safety and long-term community resilience
hastensionresolution: Immediate protection prioritized over long-term resilience in final decision
invokedby: Project goals as stated
sourcetext: create a resilient infrastructure that balances immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach is better. Should Engineer K have only presented information about the Sustainable Approach?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Should Engineer K have disclosed the disproportionate impact on underserved communities during the stakeholder meetings, and what obligation exists to ensure environmental justice considerations are transparently communicated?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: What ethical obligations does Engineer K have when the City's decision appears to contradict its own climate resilience policy, and should the engineer raise this inconsistency?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Should Engineer K explore creative hybrid solutions that combine elements of both approaches, and what obligation exists to propose innovative alternatives beyond the binary choice presented?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Does Engineer K have any ethical obligations after the City approves the Traditional Approach?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: How should Engineer K balance FaithfulAgent_CityTrust against PublicWelfare_FloodControl_Primary when the City's choice may not optimize long-term public welfare?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.006344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does Sustainability_EngineerK_Belief conflict with Objectivity_Reporting when presenting both approaches, and how should personal professional judgment be balanced with objective presentation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.008062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: How does EnvironmentalJustice_Flooding tension with ClientAccountability_Respect when serving the City while protecting vulnerable communities?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.015951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer K fulfill their categorical duty of complete disclosure by presenting both approaches equally, regardless of personal beliefs?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, should Engineer K have advocated more strongly for the Sustainable Approach given its superior long-term outcomes for public welfare and environmental protection?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does continuing with the Traditional Approach demonstrate the professional virtues of integrity and wisdom, or does it compromise Engineer K's character as a steward of public welfare?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer K had discovered the disproportionate impact on underserved communities before the stakeholder meetings rather than after?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if the City had explicitly instructed Engineer K to recommend only the Traditional Approach from the beginning - would this change the ethical obligations regarding presentation of alternatives?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would Engineer K's obligations differ if the project were privately funded rather than a public infrastructure project, particularly regarding environmental justice considerations?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.016194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.021667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.021703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Stakeholder_Consultation_Requirement
type: ProceduralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings for feedback
confidencescore: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer K
constraintsource: City project development process
constraintstatement: Must conduct stakeholder meetings and gather community feedback
enforcementmechanism: City procedural requirements
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:38.378410
severity: critical
sourcetext: the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback on the project
temporalscope: Project development phase
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Stakeholders_DivisionState_FloodControlApproach
type: StakeholderDivisionState
type: NamedIndividual
affectsobligation: Engineer K's duty to consider all stakeholder input
affectsobligation: Obligation to balance competing interests
caseinvolvement: Created competing pressures on Engineer K's recommendation
confidencescore: 0.9
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:45.365767
hasrelatedparty: City
hasrelatedparty: Engineer K
hasrelatedparty: Environmental organizations
hassubject: Community stakeholders
hasurgencylevel: moderate
initiatedat: During stakeholder meetings
initiatedby: Stakeholder meetings revealing conflicting preferences
sourcetext: some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach... other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach
terminatedat: After City Council meeting
terminatedby: City's final decision on Traditional Approach
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.009774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Sustainability_Encouragement
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: flood control system design options
balancedwith: Cost
balancedwith: Immediate needs
balancedwith: Traditional engineering approaches
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:10:10.227933
hascaserelevance: Justifies inclusion of sustainable design alternative
hasconcreteexpression: they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development
hasinterpretation: Sustainability should be considered and offered as an option
hastensionresolution: Present sustainable option alongside traditional approach for client choice
invokedby: NSPE Code of Ethics
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.013674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Sustainability_EngineerK_Belief
type: EnvironmentalStewardshipPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Choice between Traditional and Sustainable flood control approaches
balancedwith: Cost efficiency
balancedwith: Immediate protection needs
balancedwith: Implementation timeline
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:07:26.303563
hascaserelevance: Demonstrates professional obligation to sustainability while respecting client decision-making
hasconcreteexpression: Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies and the engineer's professional obligation to promote sustainability and resilience
hasinterpretation: Professional engineers have an obligation to promote sustainable solutions that align with long-term environmental stewardship
hastensionresolution: Engineer presents both options despite personal belief in sustainable approach
invokedby: Engineer K
sourcetext: Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies and the engineer's professional obligation to promote sustainability and resilience
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Transparency_StakeholderEngagement
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Council meeting presentation
balancedwith: Client preferences
balancedwith: Professional judgment
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:07:26.303563
hascaserelevance: Demonstrates professional commitment to informed consent and transparency
hasconcreteexpression: Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach
hasinterpretation: Full disclosure of all relevant information including risks enables informed decision-making
hastensionresolution: Engineer fulfills transparency obligation despite personal preference for sustainable approach
invokedby: Engineer K
sourcetext: Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Principles Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.011445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

Underserved_Community_Impact
type: CommunityImpactConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Traditional approach could divert floodwaters to underserved neighborhood
confidencescore: 0.8
constrainedentity: Traditional Approach design
constraintsource: Environmental justice principles
constraintstatement: Design should not disproportionately impact underserved communities with flood risk
enforcementmechanism: Community advocacy and potential legal action
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:08:38.378410
severity: major
sourcetext: could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
temporalscope: Design and operational phases
wasgeneratedby: ProEthica Dual Constraints Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.012678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

the City
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
caseinvolvement: Hires Engineer K, has climate resiliency policies, directs stakeholder meetings, decides not to address floodwater diversion issue, approves Traditional Approach
generatedattime: 2025-12-20T13:04:00.796069
hasactiveobligation: Develop infrastructure with climate change resiliency
hasactiveobligation: Direct stakeholder engagement process
hasactiveobligation: Make project decisions
hasethicaltension: Cost considerations versus long-term sustainability
hasethicaltension: Project urgency versus environmental justice concerns
hasexperience: None
haslicense: None
hasspecialization: municipal government
hastitle: None
sourcetext: Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system
wasattributedto: Case 4 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.009272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A1
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A1
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument may compromise public safety. Review recommended.
founding value compliant: false
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.1
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Active_Stewardship_Implementation
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_FaithfulAgent_City
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A1
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation note2: Founding value violation: Claim or warrant contains violation indicator: 'risk'
validation note3: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.0
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.019129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A10
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A10
argument type: con
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
validates argument: A10
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.020660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A11
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A11
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#II.3
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Single_Approach_Advocacy
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_Reporting_Truthfulness
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A11
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.020842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A12
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A12
argument type: con
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A12
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.008988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A13
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A13
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.4
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Policy_Inconsistency_Communication
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_RespectDecision_City
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A13
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.009140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A14
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A14
argument type: con
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A14
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.020963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A15
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A15
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.4
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Silent_Policy_Acceptance
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_RespectDecision_City
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A15
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.021121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A16
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A16
argument type: con
decision point id: DP4
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A16
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.021274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A17
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A17
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP5
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#II.1
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Hybrid_Solution_Development
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_RespectDecision_City
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A17
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A18
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A18
argument type: con
decision point id: DP5
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A18
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.021391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A19
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A19
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP5
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#II.1
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Binary_Choice_Limitation
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_RespectDecision_City
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A19
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.021532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A2
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A2
argument type: con
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument may compromise public safety. Review recommended.
founding value compliant: false
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A2
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation note2: Founding value violation: Claim or warrant contains violation indicator: 'risk'
validation score: 0.2
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.019252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A20
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A20
argument type: con
decision point id: DP5
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A20
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A3
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A3
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.1
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Implementation_Refusal
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_FaithfulAgent_City
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A3
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation note2: Missing virtues: competence
validation score: 0.4
virtue validation passed: false
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.019430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A4
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A4
argument type: con
decision point id: DP1
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: competence
validates argument: A4
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.019576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A5
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A5
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.1
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Additional_Stakeholder_Disclosure
validates argument: A5
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 2 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.019701
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A6
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A6
argument type: con
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: trustworthiness
validates argument: A6
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.020165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A7
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A7
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.1
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Limited_Client_Disclosure
validates argument: A7
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 2 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.020304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A8
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A8
argument type: con
decision point id: DP2
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing virtue1: trustworthiness
validates argument: A8
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.020421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

val_A9
type: ArgumentValidation
type: NamedIndividual
argument id: A9
argument type: pro
decision point id: DP3
entity validation passed: false
founding good: public_safety
founding value analysis: This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
founding value compliant: true
is valid: false
missing entity1: Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#II.3
missing entity2: Data: case-4#Transparent_Professional_Judgment
missing entity3: Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_Reporting_Truthfulness
validates argument: A9
validation note1: Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
validation score: 0.6000000000000001
virtue validation passed: true
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.020549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A1
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: I.1
claim entity: Continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
claim text: Engineer K should continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
confidence score: 0.7999999999999999
decision point id: DP1
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Safety FloodControl Primary
option description: Continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
qualifier constraint: Faithful Agent City Trust
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Safety FloodControl Primary
warrant type: obligation
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A10
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
claim text: Engineer K should NOT present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
confidence score: 0.55
decision point id: DP3
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Professional public safety
option description: Present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional public safety
warrant type: founding_good
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A11
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: II.3
claim entity: Present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
claim text: Engineer K should present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
confidence score: 0.6
decision point id: DP3
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Professional Judgment
option description: Present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
qualifier constraint: Professional Objectivity
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional Judgment
warrant type: inferred_value
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A12
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
claim text: Engineer K should NOT present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
confidence score: 0.7
decision point id: DP3
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Human Oversight
option description: Present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Human Oversight
warrant type: ethical_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A13
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: I.4
claim entity: Proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
claim text: Engineer K should proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
confidence score: 0.7999999999999999
decision point id: DP4
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Climate Resilience Policy Alignment
option description: Proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
qualifier constraint: Respect City Decision
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Climate Resilience Policy Alignment
warrant type: obligation
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A14
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
claim text: Engineer K should NOT proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
confidence score: 0.55
decision point id: DP4
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Professional public safety
option description: Proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional public safety
warrant type: founding_good
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A15
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: I.4
claim entity: Respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
claim text: Engineer K should respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
confidence score: 0.6
decision point id: DP4
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Professional Judgment
option description: Respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
qualifier constraint: Respect City Decision
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional Judgment
warrant type: inferred_value
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A16
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
claim text: Engineer K should NOT respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
confidence score: 0.7
decision point id: DP4
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Human Oversight
option description: Respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Human Oversight
warrant type: ethical_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A17
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: II.1
claim entity: Develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
claim text: Engineer K should develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
confidence score: 0.7999999999999999
decision point id: DP5
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Creative Solution Development
option description: Develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
qualifier constraint: Respect Existing Decision Process
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Creative Solution Development
warrant type: obligation
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A18
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
claim text: Engineer K should NOT develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
confidence score: 0.55
decision point id: DP5
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Professional public safety
option description: Develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional public safety
warrant type: founding_good
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A19
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: II.1
claim entity: Limit work to the two originally presented approaches
claim text: Engineer K should limit work to the two originally presented approaches
confidence score: 0.6
decision point id: DP5
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Professional Judgment
option description: Limit work to the two originally presented approaches
qualifier constraint: Respect Existing Decision Process
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional Judgment
warrant type: inferred_value
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A2
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
claim text: Engineer K should NOT continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
confidence score: 0.7
decision point id: DP1
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Efficiency
option description: Continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Efficiency
warrant type: ethical_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A20
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Limit work to the two originally presented approaches
claim text: Engineer K should NOT limit work to the two originally presented approaches
confidence score: 0.55
decision point id: DP5
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Professional public safety
option description: Limit work to the two originally presented approaches
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional public safety
warrant type: founding_good
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A3
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: I.1
claim entity: Refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
claim text: Engineer K should refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
confidence score: 0.6
decision point id: DP1
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Professional Judgment
option description: Refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
qualifier constraint: Faithful Agent City Trust
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Professional Judgment
warrant type: inferred_value
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A4
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
claim text: Engineer K should NOT refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
confidence score: 0.7
decision point id: DP1
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Efficiency
option description: Refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Efficiency
warrant type: ethical_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.007330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A5
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: I.1
claim entity: Immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
claim text: Engineer K should immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
confidence score: 0.7999999999999999
decision point id: DP2
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Environmental Justice Disclosure
option description: Immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
qualifier constraint: Faithful Agency to City
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Environmental Justice Disclosure
warrant type: obligation
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A6
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
claim text: Engineer K should NOT immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
confidence score: 0.7
decision point id: DP2
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Confidentiality
option description: Immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Confidentiality
warrant type: ethical_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.017953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A7
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: I.1
claim entity: Limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
claim text: Engineer K should limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
confidence score: 0.7999999999999999
decision point id: DP2
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Disclosure
option description: Limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
qualifier constraint: Faithful Agency to City
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Disclosure
warrant type: principle
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A8
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: con
backing provision: Professional Standards
claim entity: Limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
claim text: Engineer K should NOT limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
confidence score: 0.7
decision point id: DP2
founding good analysis: This action may compromise public safety by violating the Confidentiality
option description: Limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Confidentiality
warrant type: ethical_tension
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.018067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction

A9
type: Argument
type: NamedIndividual
argument type: pro
backing provision: II.3
claim entity: Present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
claim text: Engineer K should present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
confidence score: 0.7999999999999999
decision point id: DP3
founding good analysis: This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Complete Alternatives Presentation
option description: Present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
qualifier constraint: Professional Objectivity
role label: Engineer K
warrant entity: Complete Alternatives Presentation
warrant type: obligation
generated at time: 2026-01-06T09:44:42.005876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 4 Extraction