ProEthica Case 5 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.438524
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER-Community-Engagement-Precedents
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Public Welfare and Honest Professional Communication
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City
textreferences: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them
textreferences: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City
usedby: Engineer M and ethics reviewers analyzing the case
usedincontext: Prior BER cases addressing engineer obligations to the public, honest reporting, and conflicts between client instructions and public welfare provide analogical reasoning patterns applicable to Engineer M's situation
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.439008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

BER Case 09-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 09-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 09-10, Engineer A owned ABC Engineering in State P. Engineer X owned XYZ Engineering in State Q.
textreferences: In BER Case 09-10, Engineer A owned ABC Engineering in State P. Engineer X owned XYZ Engineering in State Q.
textreferences: The BER found that Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question.
textreferences: The BER further found that if Engineer A was not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X's explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board.
usedby: BER in establishing Engineer M's procedural obligations when confronting Firm DBA's potential violations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that when an engineer discovers potential ethical or licensure violations by another firm, the engineer has an obligation to first communicate with the other party for clarification and, if not satisfied, may be required to report the matter to the state engineering licensure board; applied to Engineer M's obligations regarding Firm DBA's conduct
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.442791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

BER Case 21-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 21-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 21-7, the question put to the BER was as follows: should an Engineer include information about the utility generation mix and rolling blackouts in the report to an organization?
textreferences: A report that does not contain relevant information will not help stakeholders make an informed decision and does not protect public safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: In BER Case 21-7, the question put to the BER was as follows: should an Engineer include information about the utility generation mix and rolling blackouts in the report to an organization?
textreferences: Likewise, in this case, pertinent information was missing from the report.
textreferences: The BER found that as a registered professional, that Engineer was obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the organization.
usedby: BER in establishing the professional report completeness obligation and Engineer M's duty to challenge the DBA report
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that a registered professional engineer is obliged to include all relevant and pertinent information in a report so that stakeholders can make informed decisions and public safety is protected; applied to establish that Firm DBA's omission of material facts from the community engagement report was an ethical violation, and that Engineer M has both the right and duty to challenge the report
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.442933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

BER Case 60-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 60-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 60-3, the facts indicated that an engineering firm was providing sub-professional services and, because of that, the firm was not required to abide by the provisions of the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct.
textreferences: In BER Case 60-3, the facts indicated that an engineering firm was providing sub-professional services and, because of that, the firm was not required to abide by the provisions of the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct.
textreferences: The conclusion by the BER in BER Case 60-3 was that the Canons and Rules did not apply. However, the Code has been revised since that time.
usedby: BER in analyzing whether the NSPE Code applies to Firm DBA's public relations services
usedincontext: Cited as prior precedent holding that an engineering firm providing sub-professional services was not required to abide by the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct; distinguished in the current case because the Code has since been revised and Firm DBA has licensed PEs in supervisory and ownership roles
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.442341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

BER Case 60-3 decision before NSPE Code of Ethics revision
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: However, the Code has been revised since that time [since BER Case 60-3].
from entity text: BER Case 60-3 decision
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: NSPE Code of Ethics revision
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: NSPE Code of Ethics revision
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

BER Case 88-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 88-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 88-6, Engineer A had the responsibility for a city's waste disposal plant and is also directly responsible to City Administrator C.
textreferences: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: In BER Case 88-6, Engineer A had the responsibility for a city's waste disposal plant and is also directly responsible to City Administrator C.
textreferences: The BER found that Engineer A did not fulfill ethical obligations of holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
usedby: BER in establishing Engineer M's affirmative duty to act on public safety concerns
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer who fails to take further action after being silenced by a supervisor regarding a public safety risk does not fulfill the ethical obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public; applied analogically to Engineer M's duty to act despite pressure from the City or Firm DBA
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.442636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

BER Case 98-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 98-2 addressed the ethical concerns of an international NSPE member that encountered separate and conflicting legal and ethical issues working in a county other than the U.S.
textreferences: BER Case 98-2 addressed the ethical concerns of an international NSPE member that encountered separate and conflicting legal and ethical issues working in a county other than the U.S.
textreferences: it was determined that the Code applied to members universally.
textreferences: it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members.
usedby: BER in establishing universal applicability of the Code to Firm DBA
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that the NSPE Code applies universally to all NSPE members regardless of geographic or contextual variation, supporting the conclusion that the Code applies to Firm DBA regardless of the type of services provided
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.442476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Case 5 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 8
event count: 5
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_City Engages Firm DBA
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer M Escalates to City
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer M Raises Concerns
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_Excluding Written and Virtual
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_Firm DBA Dismisses Concerns
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_Producing Misleading Outreach
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

CausalLink_Scheduling Sessions Inaccessib
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Certified Public Relations Professional Code of Ethics
type: PublicRelationsProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Public relations professional society (e.g., PRSA or equivalent credentialing body)
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Code of Ethics for Certified Public Relations Professionals
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Relations Professional Code
sourcetext: If the individuals most heavily involved in the project at Firm DBA are Certified Public Relations Professionals, they would be held to a code of ethics that provides for honest and truthful conduct.
textreferences: However, the BER will not comment on these potential obligations, as it is beyond the BER's duties to review other codes.
textreferences: If the individuals most heavily involved in the project at Firm DBA are Certified Public Relations Professionals, they would be held to a code of ethics that provides for honest and truthful conduct.
usedby: BER in contextualizing the ethical obligations of non-engineer staff at Firm DBA
usedincontext: Referenced as a parallel professional code that would bind Certified Public Relations Professionals at Firm DBA to honest and truthful conduct obligations, though the BER declines to evaluate obligations under this code as outside its jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.443089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City Administrator C instructing Engineer A to limit discussion before City Administrator C removing Engineer A from responsibility
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: City Administrator C told Engineer A to discuss this matter only with him and, subsequentially, removed Engineer A from responsibility of the disposal plant.
from entity text: City Administrator C instructing Engineer A to limit discussion
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: City Administrator C removing Engineer A from responsibility
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: City Administrator C removing Engineer A from resp
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City Administrator C removing Engineer A from responsibility before critical scenario occurring and wastewater release
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A took no further action. The critical scenario did, in fact, happen and a release of partially-treated wastewater occurred.
from entity text: City Administrator C removing Engineer A from responsibility
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: critical scenario occurring and wastewater release
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: critical scenario occurring and wastewater release
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City Engages Firm DBA
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: municipal client / project authority
foreseen unintended effects: Delegation of outreach design to a third party reduces direct City oversight of session quality and accessibility
foreseen unintended effects: Risk that Firm DBA's implementation choices may not equitably serve all affected communities
fulfills obligation text: Procedural requirement to conduct public engagement before infrastructure decisions
guided by principle text: Client accountability for delegated functions
guided by principle text: Equitable community engagement
guided by principle text: Public welfare paramount
has agent: City
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Fulfill procedural public engagement requirements and advance the highway project through an organized outreach process
raises obligation text: Duty to ensure equitable access to public participation for historically underserved communities
raises obligation text: Obligation to exercise adequate oversight of contracted outreach activities affecting public welfare
requires capability text: Contract scope definition for outreach services
requires capability text: Procurement and vendor selection judgment
requires capability text: Understanding of equitable public engagement standards
temporal marker: Planning phase
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: The City decides to require public engagement sessions and selects Firm DBA as the outreach coordination partner for the highway infrastructure project affecting Community P. This decision establishes the structural conditions under which subsequent outreach failures occur.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City Engages Firm DBA → Project Record Integrity Compromised
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The City decides to require public engagement sessions and selects Firm DBA as the outreach coordina
cause: City Engages Firm DBA
counterfactual: Had the City established clear accessibility requirements, monitored outreach execution, and required independent verification of participation claims, Firm DBA's exclusionary practices would have been constrained or detected before corrupting the project record
effect: Project Record Integrity Compromised
necessary factors: City's absence of ongoing oversight of Firm DBA's outreach execution
necessary factors: City's failure to establish enforceable accessibility and participation standards as conditions of engagement
necessary factors: City's selection of Firm DBA without adequate vetting of outreach methodology
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: City (shared with Firm DBA)
sufficient factors: The City's delegation of outreach coordination to Firm DBA without accountability structures was a necessary precondition, but alone insufficient, it became sufficient only in combination with Firm DBA's subsequent exclusionary decisions and misrepresentations
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City instructions to Firm DBA before Firm DBA organizing sessions at inaccessible times/locations
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
from entity text: City instructions to Firm DBA
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Firm DBA organizing sessions at inaccessible times/locations
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Firm DBA organizing sessions at inaccessible times
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance — City Instructions to Firm DBA
type: Client-DirectedEthicalViolationNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City leaders specifically instructed Firm DBA to conduct engagement sessions in the manner that excluded Community P, citing economic, political, and social considerations. Firm DBA complied and Engineer M failed to prevent the implementation of these instructions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Firm DBA and Engineer M
constraintclass: Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm DBA and Engineer M were constrained from complying with the City's instructions to conduct public engagement in a structurally exclusionary manner, even when the City cited economic, political, and social justifications, because those instructions directed conduct that violated professional ethical obligations regarding honest and equitable public engagement.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1, Section II.2; BER Case 88-6; Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
sourcetext: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
temporalscope: During the public engagement phase when City instructions were received and implemented
textreferences: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
textreferences: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.449481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Community P Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder
type: HistoricallyUnderservedCommunityStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'community_status': 'Historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened', 'participation_barrier': 'Sessions held during work hours at inaccessible locations without transit access', 'concerns_expressed': ['Resident displacement', 'Local business disruption'], 'input_misrepresented': True}
caseinvolvement: Residents of the historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood through which the highway upgrade is proposed to run; systematically excluded from public engagement sessions through inaccessible scheduling and locations; those who did participate expressed concerns about displacement and business disruption; their input was misrepresented in Firm DBA's report as support for the project.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'excluded_by', 'target': 'Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_decisions_of', 'target': 'City Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder
sourcetext: Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
textreferences: Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
textreferences: Few Community P members participate, and those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.440171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Community P Participation Failure
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: EquitableParticipation_Constraint
activates constraint: NonDiscrimination_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicInterest_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: Public record now reflects skewed participation; Community P's concerns are structurally absent from the planning record; project legitimacy is compromised
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Participation_Gaps
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Raise_Concerns
creates obligation: Notify_City_Of_Inequity
creates obligation: Remedial_Outreach_Required
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During public outreach phase, concurrent with session scheduling
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: high
comment: Due to inaccessible scheduling and location choices, few Community P residents are able to participate in the public outreach sessions, resulting in a near-total exclusion of the historically underserved neighborhood from the planning process.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Community Q Alternate Route Stakeholder
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'community_status': 'Alternate route community', 'session_location': 'Sessions held in Community Q despite Community P being the primary affected area', 'comments_received': 'Many comments supporting routing through Community P rather than Community Q'}
caseinvolvement: The community in which Firm DBA held the public outreach sessions, which is an alternate routing option for the highway upgrade; residents of Community Q provided comments supporting the upgrade through Community P rather than through their own neighborhood, yet their area was selected as the venue for public engagement sessions.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'alternate_route_to', 'target': 'Community P Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder'}
relationships: {'type': 'session_venue_selected_by', 'target': 'Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project
textreferences: Many comments are received that support the upgrade through the historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood (Community P) and not through Community Q
textreferences: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.440324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Concerns Formally Dismissed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_M_Independent_Judgment_Constraint
activates constraint: Escalation_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicInterest_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: Informal remediation pathway is closed; Engineer M's obligation to escalate is now activated; the City is implicated as a potential co-author of the inequitable process
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Document_Dismissal
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Escalate_Beyond_Firm_DBA
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Evaluate_City_Complicity
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer M raises concerns to Firm DBA
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: After Engineer M raises concerns about the inequitable outreach process, Firm DBA's dismissal becomes an official organizational response, citing prior City practice and direct City instructions as justification, effectively closing off informal resolution and escalating the ethical stakes.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Firm DBA's actions are unethical because its services were provided under the supervision and ownership of licensed professional engineers, the ethical violation is compounded by the deliberate structural arrangement Firm DBA employed. By routing the substantive public engagement work through its communications and public relations department while maintaining licensed PE supervisors in nominal oversight roles, Firm DBA created an accountability gap that obscured — but did not eliminate — the professional responsibility of those licensed engineers. The Code's universality does not permit licensed engineers to insulate themselves from ethical obligations by delegating communicative or outreach functions to unlicensed staff. Because the public engagement report was a professional work product submitted in connection with a licensed engineering project, and because licensed PEs held supervisory and ownership authority over the department that produced it, those engineers bore an unconditional duty to ensure the report was complete, accurate, and non-deceptive. Their failure to exercise that duty — whether through deliberate acquiescence or willful inattention — constitutes an independent ethical violation beyond the mere fact of supervision.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
cited provision5: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Firm DBA's actions are unethical does not fully address the independent ethical significance of the City's explicit direction to conduct the public engagement sessions in the manner Firm DBA completed them. Client direction — even from a municipal authority with legitimate governmental standing — does not constitute a valid ethical defense for a licensed engineering firm that produces a materially incomplete and misleading professional report. The Code imposes obligations on engineers that are independent of and superior to client instructions, and those obligations cannot be waived by contractual or political direction. Firm DBA's defense that it was following City instructions therefore fails as an ethical matter: the obligation not to engage in deceptive acts and not to issue misleading reports is categorical, not conditional on client approval. Furthermore, the City's conduct in directing the inequitable engagement process raises an independent ethical concern that Engineer M was obligated to identify and communicate to the City as a matter of professional duty, separate from any challenge to Firm DBA's report. The City's direction, if accurately characterized by Firm DBA, itself constitutes an attempt to use a licensed engineering firm as an instrument of procedural manipulation affecting the safety, health, and welfare of Community P residents.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Firm DBA's actions are unethical implicitly establishes that Engineer M's continued association with the project — after raising concerns that were dismissed by Firm DBA and potentially by the City — requires affirmative action to avoid Engineer M's own ethical exposure. The Code prohibits engineers from associating in business ventures with persons or firms engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise, and from permitting the use of their name in connection with such ventures. Once Firm DBA's misleading report entered the official public record and Engineer M's verbal concerns had been dismissed, Engineer M's continued participation in the project without formal written objection to the City, and without escalation to the state licensure board if the City failed to act, would itself constitute impermissible association with a fraudulent enterprise. The triggering condition for Engineer M's obligation to formally disassociate is not merely the submission of the misleading report, but the exhaustion of the graduated escalation pathway — first confronting Firm DBA, then notifying the City in writing, and finally reporting to the licensure board — without remediation. Engineer M's failure to escalate beyond a verbal concern to Firm DBA, prior to the report entering the record, represents an incomplete discharge of the professional duty to protect the public welfare and to avoid association with deceptive conduct.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: The City's explicit instruction to Firm DBA to conduct public engagement in a manner that structurally excluded Community P residents constitutes an independent ethical violation that Engineer M cannot simply absorb into a private notification to the City. When a client actively directs a fraudulent process — rather than merely failing to prevent one — the client itself becomes a party to the deception. Engineer M's obligation under Code Section I.1 to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and under Section II.1.f to report alleged Code violations to appropriate professional bodies, is not discharged by notifying the wrongdoer of its own wrongdoing. If the City, after being notified by Engineer M, declines to correct the public record, Engineer M faces a residual obligation to report the matter to the state engineering licensure board and, depending on jurisdiction, to environmental justice or civil rights oversight bodies. The City's direction does not insulate it from ethical scrutiny; it elevates the severity of the violation by introducing deliberate institutional intent into what might otherwise be characterized as negligent outreach design.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.d.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer M's continued association with the project crosses into impermissible territory under Code Section II.1.d when two conditions are jointly satisfied: first, Engineer M has raised concerns with Firm DBA and those concerns have been formally dismissed; and second, Engineer M has escalated to the City and the City has either ratified the fraudulent report or declined to correct the public record. At that point, the misleading report is not merely a subconsultant's error that Engineer M is working to remedy — it is an established element of the official project record that Engineer M's continued participation implicitly endorses. The triggering condition for formal disassociation is not the mere existence of the fraudulent report but the exhaustion of internal escalation pathways without remediation. Engineer M should document each escalation step in writing, issue a formal written objection to the City stating that the public engagement record is materially incomplete and misleading, and notify the City that continued association is contingent on correction of the record. If the City refuses, Engineer M's obligation to avoid association with a fraudulent enterprise under Section II.1.d requires disassociation, accompanied by notification to the licensure board under Section II.1.f.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: III.3.a.
cited provision3: I.3.
cited provision4: I.5.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The deliberate routing of public engagement sessions to Community Q — the alternate route community — rather than to Community P, the primary affected community, creates a structural conflict of interest that Engineer M was independently obligated to identify and disclose to the City before Firm DBA's report was submitted. Community Q residents have a direct financial and residential interest in the routing decision favoring Community P as the project corridor, meaning that their supportive comments cannot be treated as neutral public input. By conducting sessions in Community Q and reporting the results as representative of Community P's views, Firm DBA produced a report that is not merely incomplete but affirmatively misleading as to the source and character of the input received. Engineer M, as lead engineer with oversight responsibility for subconsultant conduct, had both the capability and the obligation under Code Sections II.3.a and III.3.a to recognize this structural bias and to advise the City that the engagement process was designed in a manner that systematically substituted the preferences of an interested alternate-route community for the views of the directly affected community. Failure to raise this specific concern — as distinct from the general concern about session accessibility — represents an independent gap in Engineer M's ethical performance.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: I.1.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The structural arrangement in which Firm DBA's communications and public relations department — rather than its licensed professional engineers — directly executed the public engagement work raises a legitimate question about the scope of professional practice and the adequacy of PE supervision. However, the case facts establish that Firm DBA's licensed PEs hold supervisory and ownership roles over all departments, including the communications department. Under this structure, the licensed PEs are in responsible charge of the work product regardless of which department physically produced it. The ethical violation is therefore not primarily one of unlicensed practice — because the PEs' supervisory authority means the work is legally attributable to them — but rather one of supervisory failure: the licensed PEs allowed a materially deficient and deceptive report to be submitted under their professional umbrella without correction. Engineer M's independent obligation was not necessarily to flag the departmental structure as a licensure compliance concern, but rather to recognize that the licensed PEs' supervisory authority made them fully accountable for the report's contents, and that Firm DBA's defense that the communications department — rather than its engineers — was responsible for the report's framing is ethically unavailing. The Code's universality, as reflected in the obligation that all engineers avoid deceptive acts under Section I.5, binds the licensed PE supervisors unconditionally.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: I.5.
cited provision4: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between Engineer M's duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the duty of loyalty to the City as client is resolved by the Code's explicit hierarchy: public welfare is paramount and is not subordinate to client instructions. Code Section I.1 places public safety, health, and welfare above all other obligations, and Code Section III.1.b requires engineers to advise clients when a project will not be successful. When the City's explicit instructions to Firm DBA are the mechanism by which public welfare is being harmed — through the systematic exclusion of Community P residents from a process that will determine whether their neighborhood bears the burden of a major infrastructure corridor — Engineer M's duty of loyalty to the City does not extend to compliance with those instructions. Loyalty to a client is a professional obligation that operates within ethical boundaries; it does not authorize an engineer to facilitate a process that produces a fraudulent public record. Engineer M's obligation is to advise the City clearly and in writing that the engagement process as conducted does not satisfy professional or legal standards, that the report as submitted is materially misleading, and that Engineer M cannot continue to associate with the project unless the record is corrected. This is not a betrayal of the client relationship — it is the fulfillment of the engineer's highest professional duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The graduated escalation principle — first raising concerns with Firm DBA, then with the City, and finally with the licensure board — is a procedurally sound default that reflects the Code's preference for resolving disputes at the lowest possible level. However, this principle is not absolute and does not require Engineer M to exhaust each level sequentially when the harm being perpetuated is ongoing, material, and irreversible in its immediate effects. Once Firm DBA's misleading report entered the official project record, each day that passed without correction increased the probability that the City would rely on the fraudulent record to advance a routing decision affecting Community P. At that point, the urgency of the public welfare harm begins to compress the timeline for escalation. Engineer M should not interpret the graduated escalation principle as requiring weeks or months of internal negotiation while a fraudulent public record shapes an infrastructure decision affecting a historically underserved community. A reasonable interpretation of the Code requires Engineer M to escalate to the City promptly — within days, not weeks — after Firm DBA dismisses the concerns, and to escalate to the licensure board promptly after the City fails to act. The paramountcy of public welfare under Section I.1 sets the tempo of escalation; procedural gradualism does not override it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.5.
cited provision4: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The tension between the obligation to avoid injuring the professional reputation of others under Code Section III.7 and the obligation to report Firm DBA's ethical violations is resolved by the qualifying language of Section III.7 itself, which prohibits malicious or false injury to professional reputation — not factually grounded, professionally necessary reporting. When Engineer M reports Firm DBA's conduct to the City and the licensure board, the report is not malicious — it is compelled by the Code — and it is not false — it is supported by documented facts including the inaccessible session locations, the absence of written comment mechanisms, the absence of virtual participation options, and the material omissions in Firm DBA's submitted report. Section III.7 was designed to prevent engineers from weaponizing the reporting mechanism to harm competitors or adversaries; it was not designed to insulate engineers who commit genuine ethical violations from professional accountability. Engineer M's reporting obligation under Section II.1.f is not merely permitted despite Section III.7 — it is required. The two provisions are reconciled by the factual grounding and professional necessity of the report, not by subordinating one to the other.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560753
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: Client direction does not constitute a valid ethical defense for a licensed engineering firm that produces a materially incomplete and misleading public engagement report. The Code's obligations are imposed on engineers as individual licensed professionals and on firms whose licensed PEs hold supervisory and ownership authority; they are not suspended by client instructions. Firm DBA's defense — that it was following explicit City instructions — might mitigate the moral culpability of a non-licensed employee who lacked independent professional authority to refuse, but it cannot mitigate the culpability of licensed professional engineers who held supervisory and ownership roles and who therefore had both the authority and the obligation to refuse to submit a deceptive report. Code Section I.5 requires engineers to avoid deceptive acts unconditionally; it does not contain a client-direction exception. Code Section II.3.a requires engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports; it does not yield to client preferences. The obligation to serve the client faithfully operates within the boundaries of professional ethics, not above them. A licensed engineering firm that follows client instructions to produce a fraudulent public record has not fulfilled its duty to the client — it has betrayed its duty to the public and to the profession, and the client's instruction is an aggravating factor, not an exculpatory one.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer M did not fully discharge the categorical duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by raising concerns only with Firm DBA. The Kantian framework requires that Engineer M act according to a maxim that could be universalized: if all lead engineers on public infrastructure projects responded to subconsultant fraud by raising a verbal concern and then deferring to the subconsultant's dismissal, the public engagement process for infrastructure projects affecting underserved communities would be systematically corrupted without professional accountability. Engineer M's verbal concern to Firm DBA was a necessary first step but not a sufficient discharge of the categorical duty. The duty required Engineer M to escalate to the City in writing, to formally object to the submission of the misleading report, and — upon the City's failure to act — to report the violation to the licensure board. Each of these steps is independently required by the Code and is consistent with the deontological principle that the duty to protect the public is unconditional and cannot be discharged by a gesture that the engineer knows will be ineffective.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.560908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the cumulative harm to Community P residents — including potential permanent displacement, loss of local businesses, and the long-term burden of a major highway corridor through a historically underserved neighborhood — substantially outweighs any procedural convenience, political expediency, or economic benefit the City cited in directing the inequitable engagement process. The consequentialist calculus is further weighted by the irreversibility of infrastructure routing decisions: once a highway corridor is established through Community P on the basis of a fraudulent public engagement record, the harm to residents is not merely temporary or correctable. The distribution of harms also matters under a utilitarian analysis — the benefits of the routing decision accrue diffusely to the City and to Community Q, while the concentrated, severe, and long-term harms fall on Community P, a community already identified as historically underserved and overburdened. This distributional asymmetry strengthens the consequentialist case for Engineer M's refusal to continue association with the project unless the fraudulent record is corrected, because the expected harm of continued participation — a permanently unjust infrastructure outcome — exceeds the expected harm of disassociation — project delay and professional friction.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.5.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.3.a.
cited provision4: I.1.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Firm DBA's licensed professional engineers — who held supervisory and ownership roles over the communications department — failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage that the virtue of engineering professionalism requires. A virtuous engineer, in the Aristotelian sense, does not merely comply with the minimum requirements of the Code when compliance is convenient; a virtuous engineer exercises practical wisdom — phronesis — to identify when institutional pressures are leading toward outcomes that betray the profession's foundational commitments. Firm DBA's licensed PEs possessed the authority, the knowledge, and the professional standing to refuse to submit a carefully-framed, materially incomplete report. Their failure to exercise that authority — whether from deference to City instructions, institutional inertia, or commercial self-interest — reflects a deficit of the moral courage that virtue ethics identifies as essential to professional character. The fact that the report was carefully framed rather than carelessly incomplete makes the ethical failure more serious, not less: it demonstrates that the licensed PEs were aware of the report's deficiencies and chose to obscure them rather than correct them.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: I.3.
cited provision4: I.1.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, the NSPE Code's universality imposes an unconditional duty on Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors to ensure the public engagement report is complete and truthful, irrespective of City instructions to the contrary. The Code does not distinguish between engineers performing technical design work and engineers supervising communications or public relations work — the ethical obligations attach to the licensed professional, not to the nature of the task being performed. Because Firm DBA's licensed PEs held supervisory and ownership authority over the communications department, the public engagement report was produced under their professional responsibility. Code Section II.3.a requires engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports and to include all relevant and pertinent information; Code Section I.5 requires engineers to avoid deceptive acts; and Code Section I.3 requires engineers to issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. None of these provisions contain exceptions for reports produced at client direction. The universality of the Code's application means that Firm DBA's licensed PEs were bound by these obligations regardless of the City's instructions, and their failure to ensure the report's completeness and truthfulness constitutes an unconditional ethical violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: III.1.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer M had formally objected in writing to the City at the moment Firm DBA dismissed Engineer M's initial verbal concerns — before the misleading report was submitted — the public record would likely have remained uncorrupted, or at minimum, the City would have been placed on formal notice of the report's deficiencies before relying on it. A written objection submitted prior to the report's entry into the official record would have created a documented professional disagreement that the City could not subsequently claim ignorance of, would have preserved Engineer M's ethical standing by demonstrating timely and unambiguous action, and would have given the City an opportunity to require Firm DBA to revise the report before it became the basis for a routing decision. The counterfactual highlights a critical gap in Engineer M's response: the transition from verbal concern to formal written objection is not merely a procedural formality — it is the mechanism by which an engineer's professional judgment enters the official record and acquires the force necessary to compel institutional response. Engineer M's failure to formalize the objection before the report was submitted allowed the misleading report to establish itself as the unchallenged official record, significantly increasing the difficulty of subsequent correction.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: I.5.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: The counterfactual in which Firm DBA held accessible sessions in Community P, accepted written and virtual comments, and reported results accurately is analytically significant because the case facts already reveal the answer: the sessions that were held — however inaccessibly — produced comments from Community P residents expressing concern about displacement and business disruption, and the broader pattern of comments supported routing the project through Community P rather than Community Q. This means that even the distorted engagement process generated opposition from Community P residents when they were able to participate. A fully equitable process — with accessible locations, written comment mechanisms, and virtual participation — would almost certainly have produced a substantially larger volume of opposition from Community P. The routing decision, if made on the basis of an accurate and complete public engagement record, would have faced a materially different evidentiary foundation. This analysis supports the conclusion that the inequitable engagement process was not procedurally neutral but outcome-determinative: it was designed to suppress Community P opposition and manufacture apparent consent. This finding strengthens the characterization of Firm DBA's report as fraudulent rather than merely incomplete, and it reinforces Engineer M's obligation to challenge the report's validity with the City.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: The existence of City direction to Firm DBA does not reduce — let alone eliminate — Firm DBA's independent ethical culpability under the Code. The counterfactual question of whether Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors would have independently designed an equitable outreach process absent City direction is relevant to assessing the character of Firm DBA's institutional culture, but it is not relevant to the ethical analysis of what Firm DBA was obligated to do once the City's instructions were received. The Code does not create a hierarchy in which client instructions override professional obligations; it creates a hierarchy in which professional obligations — particularly the paramount duty to protect public welfare — override client instructions. Firm DBA's licensed PEs, upon receiving City instructions to conduct engagement in a manner that would systematically exclude Community P residents, were obligated to advise the City that those instructions could not be followed as given, to propose an equitable alternative, and — if the City refused — to decline the engagement or withdraw from the project. The fact that Firm DBA instead complied with the City's instructions and then produced a misleading report demonstrates that Firm DBA's ethical failure was not merely situational but reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of — or disregard for — the Code's requirements.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.d.
cited provision2: III.1.b.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer M had exercised authority as lead engineer to formally refuse to allow Firm DBA's report to be submitted to the City without correction — or had credibly threatened professional disassociation from the project — that leverage may well have been sufficient to compel Firm DBA to revise the report before the misleading public record was established. As lead engineer, Engineer M occupied a position of professional authority over the project's overall integrity, and a formal refusal to endorse or allow submission of a subconsultant's report would have created institutional pressure that a verbal concern did not. The counterfactual reveals that Engineer M possessed leverage that was not exercised: the threat of disassociation by the lead engineer — with the attendant professional, contractual, and reputational consequences for Firm DBA — represents a meaningful compliance mechanism that the Code implicitly authorizes through the non-association obligation in Section II.1.d. Engineer M's failure to deploy this leverage before the report was submitted, rather than after, represents a missed opportunity to prevent the corruption of the public record at the point when prevention was most feasible. This analysis does not assign primary culpability to Engineer M — Firm DBA's ethical violations are independent and unconditional — but it identifies a gap in Engineer M's exercise of the professional authority that the lead engineer role conferred.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_217
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 217
conclusion text: In response to Q404: Even if virtual meetings and written comment mechanisms had been provided alongside the in-person sessions held in Community Q, the participation gap between Community P and Community Q would not have been fully remedied, because the session locations themselves were so fundamentally exclusionary that supplemental access measures would have addressed only part of the structural inequity. The in-person sessions were held during work hours at venues far from Community P and not easily accessible via public transit — conditions that systematically disadvantaged Community P residents regardless of whether virtual alternatives were also available. Virtual participation requires reliable internet access, digital literacy, and time — resources that are often disproportionately scarce in historically underserved communities. Written comment mechanisms, while valuable, do not substitute for the deliberative quality of in-person engagement, particularly for communities with lower rates of formal written communication with government institutions. A genuinely representative engagement process for Community P would have required sessions held within or immediately adjacent to Community P, at times accessible to working residents, with multiple participation modalities including in-person, virtual, and written options. The supplemental measures alone, without correcting the fundamental location and timing exclusions, would have produced a more accessible process but not a legitimately representative one.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.373209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: The actions of Firm DBA are not ethical under the Code as the services provided were under the supervision and ownership of licensed professional engineers.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1 b
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
cited provision3: III.1.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between client loyalty and public welfare paramountcy was resolved decisively in favor of public welfare, but the resolution was incomplete because it stopped at identifying Firm DBA's ethical violation without fully tracing the obligation chain back to Engineer M's independent duties. The Code's hierarchy is unambiguous: the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is not a principle that yields to client direction, contractual relationships, or institutional pressure. When the City explicitly instructed Firm DBA to conduct inequitable engagement sessions, and when Firm DBA complied and produced a materially incomplete report, both actors violated the paramountcy principle. Engineer M's obligation to serve the City as client did not dissolve, but it became subordinate to the obligation to notify the City that the project was proceeding on a fraudulent basis — and, if the City failed to act, to escalate further. Client loyalty is a real professional duty, but it is a conditional one: it operates only within the space that public welfare leaves open. This case teaches that when a client's explicit instructions are themselves the source of the ethical violation, the engineer cannot satisfy the duty of client service by following those instructions. The duty of client service is fulfilled, paradoxically, by refusing to follow instructions that corrupt the public record on which the client's own decision-making depends.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: I.1.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle requiring graduated escalation — resolving disputes at the lowest possible level before ascending to higher authorities — exists in genuine tension with the urgency created by a fraudulent report that has already entered the public record. This case reveals that the graduated escalation principle is not infinitely patient: it is calibrated to the severity and irreversibility of the harm being perpetuated. Once Firm DBA dismissed Engineer M's verbal concerns and submitted the misleading report, the harm was no longer prospective but active — the public record was corrupted, Community P residents had been effectively silenced, and the project routing decision was being shaped by fabricated consent. At that point, the graduated escalation principle did not require Engineer M to wait indefinitely for Firm DBA to self-correct. It required Engineer M to escalate immediately to the City, and if the City failed to act, to the state licensure board. The principle against injuring the professional reputation of others — which might counsel restraint in reporting Firm DBA — does not prohibit factually grounded, professionally necessary disclosures. It prohibits malicious or false injury, not truthful reporting of documented violations. These two principles, properly understood, do not conflict: Engineer M can report Firm DBA's conduct accurately and without malice, satisfying both the duty to report and the duty not to injure falsely.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.561944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 3 a
cites provision: II 1 d
cites provision: II 3 a
cites provision: I 3
cites provision: I 5
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 3
cited provision1: I.3.
cited provision2: I.5.
cited provision3: II.3.a.
cited provision4: III.3.a.
cited provision5: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The most significant principle interaction this case exposes is the relationship between the universality of the Code and the structural defense of client direction. Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and owners attempted — implicitly through their conduct and explicitly through their response to Engineer M — to treat the City's instructions as a complete ethical defense. This defense fails under the Code for a fundamental reason: the Code's obligations are universal and unconditional. They bind licensed engineers regardless of whether the work being performed is technical, communicative, or administrative, and regardless of whether a client has directed the conduct in question. The principle that engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner, that they shall not engage in deceptive acts, and that their reports shall be complete and not omit material facts, does not contain a carve-out for client-directed omissions. Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors held supervisory and ownership authority over the communications department that produced the report. That structural authority created a corresponding ethical responsibility: they were not passive conduits for City instructions but active professional agents whose names and licenses were implicitly attached to the work product. The case teaches that client direction reduces neither the applicability of the Code nor the culpability of the licensed engineer who follows instructions that violate it. The only ethically available response to a client instruction that requires producing a deceptive report is refusal, correction, or — if those fail — disassociation and escalation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer fulfill the M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Firm DBA given the circumstances?
focus: Engineer: Engineer M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Firm DBA
option1: Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA Formally
option2: Alternative approach to Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA Formally
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer fulfill the M Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Firm DBA given the circumstances?
focus: Engineer: Engineer M Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Firm DBA
option1: Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA Formally
option2: Alternative approach to Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA Formally
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer fulfill the M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance given the circumstances?
focus: Engineer: Engineer M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance
option1: Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA Formally
option2: Alternative approach to Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA Formally
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Did Firm DBA's licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles violate the NSPE Code of Ethics by approving and permitting the submission of a materially false and incomplete public engagement report, and does the routing of execution through a communications department insulate those licensed PEs from ethical accountability?
focus: The ethical culpability of Firm DBA's licensed professional engineers for designing and approving a public engagement process that systematically excluded Community P and submitting a materially misrepresentative report, given that the NSPE Code applies universally through the PE supervisory and ownership structure regardless of whether the executing personnel were licensed engineers.
option1: Find that Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and owners violated the NSPE Code by approving and permitting submission of a materially false public engagement report, and hold that the communications department structure does not insulate them from ethical accountability under the Code
option2: Find that Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors bear reduced or no ethical culpability because the public engagement work was executed by non-licensed communications staff and the process was directed by the City client
role label: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.374182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: If the City declines to correct the fraudulent public engagement record after Engineer M's formal escalation, should Engineer M report Firm DBA's ethical violations to the state engineering licensure board to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future, even if such reporting risks disrupting the infrastructure project timeline?
focus: Engineer M's obligation to report Firm DBA's ethical violations to the state engineering licensure board after the City — itself implicated as a directing party — fails to take corrective action, and whether such reporting produces better long-term outcomes for public welfare and professional integrity than limiting escalation to the City alone.
option1: Report Firm DBA's ethical violations to the state engineering licensure board after the City declines to take corrective action, documenting the full escalation sequence and the specific deficiencies in the public engagement report
option2: Limit escalation to the City and refrain from reporting to the licensure board, on the grounds that external reporting would disrupt the project timeline and harm Community P by delaying infrastructure improvements
role label: Engineer M
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.374257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Does the City's explicit instruction to conduct inequitable public engagement sessions constitute a client directive that Engineer M is obligated to refuse, and does Engineer M's paramount duty to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount require refusing to allow the project to proceed on the basis of a fraudulent engagement record regardless of the City's economic, political, and social justifications?
focus: The City's ethical culpability as a directing party that explicitly instructed Firm DBA to conduct public engagement sessions in a manner foreseeably excluding Community P, and whether Engineer M bears an independent obligation to refuse City directives that foreseeably channel harm toward a historically underserved community — irrespective of economic, political, or social justifications offered by the City.
option1: Refuse to allow the project to proceed on the basis of the fraudulent engagement record, advise the City formally in writing that the engagement process as directed cannot produce a report Engineer M can professionally endorse, and treat the City's economic, political, and social justifications as insufficient to override the paramount public welfare obligation
option2: Defer to the City's economic, political, and social justifications for the inequitable engagement process and continue serving the City's interest in advancing the project, treating the client directive as a legitimate exercise of client authority that Engineer M is obligated to follow
role label: Engineer M
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.374389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Displacement Concerns Raised
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Reporting_Obligation
activates constraint: PublicComment_Documentation_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicInterest_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: A formal, if incomplete, record of Community P objections now exists; these concerns become a benchmark against which the subsequent outreach report can be evaluated for accuracy
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_Must_Address_Displacement_Concerns_In_Planning
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Ensure_Concerns_Are_Recorded
creates obligation: Firm_DBA_Must_Document_Concerns_Accurately
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During public outreach sessions, after Community P participation failure
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: medium
comment: The small number of Community P residents who do manage to participate in outreach sessions raise concerns about displacement and business disruption caused by the proposed highway project, creating an official, if thin, record of community objection.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Code Universality Application Highway Upgrade
type: CodeUniversalityApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Code Universality Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applied to Firm DBA despite Firm DBA providing public relations rather than traditional engineering services, because Firm DBA employed licensed PEs in supervisory and ownership roles
casecontext: Highway upgrade project public engagement phase; Engineer M evaluating whether to confront Firm DBA about code violations in public engagement report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer M's recognition that Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and owners were bound by the Code and should be involved in compliance discussions
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
textreferences: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
textreferences: Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.454165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Confronts Firm DBA Formally
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: lead engineer, retained by City
foreseen unintended effects: Firm DBA may again refuse, necessitating City-level escalation
foreseen unintended effects: Firm DBA's PE supervisors may align with the firm's prior position rather than correct it
foreseen unintended effects: The formal invocation of Code obligations may damage the working relationship with Firm DBA
fulfills obligation text: Duty not to associate with fraudulent or dishonest enterprises (Code II.1.d)
fulfills obligation text: Duty to advise when project integrity is compromised (Code III.1.b)
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare (Code I.1)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to take action when aware of Code violations by other engineers
guided by principle text: Graduated escalation before external reporting
guided by principle text: Peer professional accountability
guided by principle text: Proportionality in professional response
guided by principle text: Public welfare protection through active intervention
has agent: Engineer M
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Compel Firm DBA to correct the misleading report and outreach record by invoking formal professional obligations and engaging firm leadership with licensure accountability, avoiding the need for City-level or board-level escalation
requires capability text: Ability to identify and engage PE-licensed supervisors within Firm DBA
requires capability text: Knowledge of NSPE Code provisions applicable to reporting and public welfare
requires capability text: Lead engineer authority and standing to challenge collaborating firm conduct
requires capability text: Professional advocacy and formal communication
temporal marker: Recommended future action 1 (post-report, forward-looking)
temporal sequence: 12
within competence: true
comment: Engineer M is directed to immediately confer with Firm DBA, invoking NSPE Code obligations explicitly and engaging Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and firm owners to demand correction of the misleading report and outreach record. This is the first step in a prescribed escalation sequence.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Environmental Justice Awareness
type: EnvironmentalJusticeAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Environmental Justice Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M demonstrated environmental justice awareness by recognizing that Community P is a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood and that the engagement process was failing to adequately represent its residents.
casecontext: Engineer M's concern about engagement accessibility reflects awareness of the heightened obligations arising when infrastructure projects affect historically underserved communities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that session logistics were inaccessible to Community P residents and expression of concern about the adequacy of outreach to the affected community
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.447117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Equitable Public Engagement Design
type: EquitablePublicEngagementDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Equitable Public Engagement Design Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M demonstrated awareness of equitable public engagement design requirements by recognizing that Firm DBA's session logistics were inaccessible to Community P residents and raising concerns accordingly.
casecontext: Engineer M identified that sessions held during work hours at venues inaccessible by public transit would exclude the affected community, demonstrating awareness of equitable engagement design standards.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Expression of concern to Firm DBA about public outreach session locations and times that were inaccessible to Community P residents
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.445889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Escalates to City
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: lead engineer, retained by City
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer M risks being perceived as obstructing the project and may face professional retaliation
foreseen unintended effects: If the City takes no action, Engineer M will face the difficult decision of whether to report to the licensure board
foreseen unintended effects: The City may side with Firm DBA, creating direct conflict between Engineer M and the client
fulfills obligation text: Duty to advise clients when a project may not be successful or when integrity is compromised (Code III.1.b)
fulfills obligation text: Duty to take escalating action when peer-level correction has failed
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare (Code I.1)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation not to associate with fraudulent or dishonest enterprises (Code II.1.d)
guided by principle text: Client advisory duty
guided by principle text: Graduated escalation to client authority
guided by principle text: Public welfare protection through systemic intervention
guided by principle text: Transparency with client about professional concerns
has agent: Engineer M
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Compel the City to direct Firm DBA to correct the misleading report and conduct remedial outreach for Community P, using the client relationship as leverage when peer-level intervention has failed
requires capability text: Client communication and professional advocacy at senior level
requires capability text: Ethical judgment under NSPE Code in client-conflict situations
requires capability text: Evidence presentation and documentation of outreach deficiencies
requires capability text: Lead engineer standing to raise systemic project integrity concerns with client
temporal marker: Recommended future action 2 (conditional, forward-looking)
temporal sequence: 13
within competence: true
comment: If Firm DBA refuses to correct the report discrepancies, Engineer M must confer directly with the City, potentially with Firm DBA present, presenting the evidence of outreach deficiencies and report inaccuracies and demanding corrective action from the client. This is the second step in the prescribed escalation sequence.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M False Community Consent Recognition
type: FalseCommunityConsentRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: False Community Consent Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M had the capability to recognize that Firm DBA's report falsely implied Community P support based on a flawed engagement process that systematically excluded Community P residents.
casecontext: Engineer M's prior concerns about session accessibility positioned him to recognize that the report's claim of Community P support was based on a manufactured absence of opposition rather than genuine community consent.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Prior expression of concern about engagement accessibility, providing basis for recognizing that low Community P participation reflected exclusion rather than genuine support
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: Few Community P members participate, and those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.446659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Graduated Escalation Navigation
type: GraduatedEscalationNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M faced the need to apply graduated escalation capability after Firm DBA dismissed his concerns by citing City directives, requiring navigation of escalation pathways from Firm DBA to the City and potentially to the state licensure board.
casecontext: After Firm DBA's non-responsive reply citing City direction, Engineer M faced the obligation to escalate concerns through appropriate channels including City leadership and potentially the state licensure board.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Initial concern-raising with Firm DBA as first escalation step; case raises question of whether further escalation to City leadership and licensure board was required
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.447408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Graduated Escalation Sequence — Firm DBA to City to Licensure Board
type: GraduatedSubconsultantEscalationProceduralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER prescribed a specific graduated escalation pathway for Engineer M, requiring direct engagement with Firm DBA first, then the City, then potential licensure board reporting.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Graduated Subconsultant Escalation Procedural Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was required to follow a graduated escalation sequence: first conferring directly with Firm DBA to state objections and demand correction; then, if Firm DBA refused, conferring with the City with Firm DBA's knowledge and potential presence; and only thereafter deciding whether to report Firm DBA to the state engineering licensure board — prohibiting both premature external reporting and indefinite deferral of escalation.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 09-10; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA.
temporalscope: From discovery of Firm DBA's report deficiencies through resolution or project withdrawal
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
textreferences: As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA.
textreferences: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.453185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Institutional Pressure Resistance
type: InstitutionalPressureResistanceinPublicEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Institutional Pressure Resistance in Public Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M demonstrated partial application of institutional pressure resistance capability by raising concerns about engagement practices despite Firm DBA's citation of City directives and prior project consistency.
casecontext: Engineer M resisted accepting Firm DBA's rationalization based on City direction and prior practice, though the case raises questions about whether further escalation was required.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Expression of concern to Firm DBA about session locations despite being told City leaders had directed the approach
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.446969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Internal Compliance Reporting
type: InternalComplianceReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Internal Compliance Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M needed to apply internal compliance reporting capability to formally document and communicate to the City the findings that Firm DBA's engagement report contained material omissions and false community consent claims.
casecontext: After Firm DBA dismissed Engineer M's concerns and submitted a misleading report, Engineer M faced the obligation to formally report the compliance failure to the City as the client.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Initial concern-raising with Firm DBA; case raises question of whether formal documented reporting to City leadership was required after Firm DBA's dismissal of concerns
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.448479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Licensure Board Reporting Assessment Firm DBA
type: LicensureBoardSelf-ReportingAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to assess whether Firm DBA's ethical violations — after City inaction — rose to the level requiring reporting to the state engineering licensure board, drawing on BER Case 09-10 precedent regarding reporting obligations when a colleague's conduct raises serious professional ethics concerns
casecontext: Final escalation decision point after City inaction on Firm DBA's false public engagement report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board if the City takes no corrective action
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
textreferences: In BER Case 09-10... The BER further found that if Engineer A was not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X's explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.454852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment
type: LicensureBoardSelf-ReportingAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M needed to assess whether Firm DBA's submission of a materially misleading public engagement report — and the City's direction to conduct exclusionary sessions — rose to the level requiring reporting to the state engineering licensure board.
casecontext: After Firm DBA dismissed concerns and submitted a misleading report, Engineer M faced the obligation to assess whether the conduct of Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors required licensure board reporting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Case raises the question of whether Engineer M's professional obligations required escalation to the state licensure board after internal concerns were dismissed
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.448650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Material Omission Recognition Public Engagement Report
type: PublicEngagementReportAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Engagement Report Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to identify the specific material omissions in Firm DBA's public engagement report — including omitted session locations, times, prohibition on written comments, and unsupported claims of Community P support — and to recognize these as violations of professional obligations to issue statements in an objective and truthful manner
casecontext: Review of Firm DBA's public engagement report for the highway upgrade project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer M's identification of discrepancies in Firm DBA's report and expression of concern to Firm DBA about inaccessible public engagement sessions
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Recognition
type: FalseCommunityConsentRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: False Community Consent Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to recognize that Firm DBA's report — which falsely claimed Community P supported the project without evidence and omitted material participation barriers — constituted a fraudulent or dishonest enterprise triggering Engineer M's obligation under Code section II.1.d to refrain from associating with or permitting use of their name in connection with such enterprise
casecontext: Engineer M's evaluation of continued project involvement after identifying Firm DBA's materially false public engagement report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that Engineer M must consider their involvement in the project given Firm DBA's false and incomplete report, and must not permit use of their name in association with a fraudulent enterprise
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
textreferences: Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning BER Cases
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to identify and apply relevant BER precedents — including BER Cases 60-3, 98-2, 88-6, 09-10, and 21-7 — to analyze the novel ethical dilemma presented by Firm DBA's false public engagement report and to reach justified conclusions about obligations and courses of action
casecontext: BER analysis of Engineer M's ethical obligations in the highway upgrade project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER's application of five prior case precedents to establish Engineer M's obligations regarding code applicability, public welfare, collegial reporting, and report completeness
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In BER Case 60-3, the facts indicated that an engineering firm was providing sub-professional services...
textreferences: BER Case 98-2 addressed the ethical concerns of an international NSPE member...
textreferences: In BER Case 09-10, Engineer A owned ABC Engineering in State P...
textreferences: In BER Case 21-7, the question put to the BER was as follows: should an Engineer include information about the utility generation mix...
textreferences: In BER Case 60-3, the facts indicated that an engineering firm was providing sub-professional services...
textreferences: In BER Case 88-6, Engineer A had the responsibility for a city's waste disposal plant...
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Project Non-Success Advisory City Highway Upgrade
type: ProjectNon-SuccessAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Project Non-Success Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to recognize that the highway upgrade project would not be successful if it proceeded on the basis of Firm DBA's false and incomplete public engagement report, and to advise the City of this risk as required by Code section III.1.b
casecontext: Escalation to City after Firm DBA's refusal to correct discrepancies in public engagement report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that Engineer M was obligated to advise the City that the project would not be successful if it proceeded on the basis of Firm DBA's false report
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
textreferences: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
textreferences: The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences. If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.454471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Project Success Adverse Notification — City Highway Upgrade
type: ProjectSuccessAdverseNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER found that if the facts about the deficient report came out later, the impact would be very negative, making Engineer M's notification obligation to the City a professional duty.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Project Success Adverse Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was required to advise the City that the highway upgrade project would not be successful if it proceeded on the basis of Firm DBA's false and incomplete public engagement report, prohibiting Engineer M from remaining silent about the anticipated negative consequences of proceeding on a fraudulent evidentiary basis.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.b
sourcetext: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
temporalscope: Upon identification of the deficiencies in Firm DBA's report and prior to project proceeding to next phase
textreferences: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
textreferences: The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences. If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.453037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Public Safety Paramount — Community P Highway Upgrade
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 88-6 established that an engineer who fails to take further action after being silenced regarding a public safety risk fails ethical obligations. The BER applied this precedent to Engineer M's situation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including Community P residents — prohibiting Engineer M from passively accepting Firm DBA's fraudulent report and allowing the project to proceed in a manner that could cause disastrous consequences to the historically underserved community.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: The most fundamental and primary Canon of the Code is to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
temporalscope: Throughout the project, particularly upon discovery of Firm DBA's report deficiencies
textreferences: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: Engineer A did not fulfill ethical obligations of holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: The most fundamental and primary Canon of the Code is to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.453373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Public Welfare Paramountcy Highway Upgrade Community P
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to recognize that the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including the historically underserved Community P — overrode client loyalty and required action against Firm DBA's false reporting, consistent with BER Case 88-6 precedent
casecontext: Engineer M's overall ethical obligations in the highway upgrade project involving Community P
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER determination that Engineer M has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, analogous to Engineer A's unfulfilled obligation in BER Case 88-6
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: In BER Case 88-6, Engineer A had the responsibility for a city's waste disposal plant... The BER found that Engineer A did not fulfill ethical obligations of holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M demonstrated public welfare paramountcy recognition by identifying that the exclusionary engagement process and false community consent report threatened the welfare of Community P residents who faced displacement and business disruption.
casecontext: Engineer M's concerns about engagement accessibility reflect recognition that public welfare — particularly of vulnerable community members — must take precedence over client convenience and political considerations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that engagement failures and false reporting harmed the interests of Community P, a historically underserved community facing potential displacement
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.447811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Raises Concerns
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: lead engineer, retained by City
foreseen unintended effects: Possible escalation of conflict if Firm DBA dismisses concerns
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of being perceived by the City as obstructing project progress
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of professional friction with Firm DBA
fulfills obligation text: Duty to notify appropriate parties of potential project failures or ethical violations (Code III.1.b)
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare (Code I.1)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation not to remain passive when aware of practices that misrepresent public input
guided by principle text: Collegial professional accountability
guided by principle text: Duty to speak up when aware of harmful or dishonest practices
guided by principle text: Professional integrity
guided by principle text: Public welfare paramount
has agent: Engineer M
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Prompt Firm DBA to correct the outreach deficiencies, ensure Community P receives genuine engagement opportunities, and protect the integrity of the project record
requires capability text: Ethical judgment under NSPE Code
requires capability text: Knowledge of public engagement standards
requires capability text: Lead engineer authority to challenge collaborating firm conduct
requires capability text: Professional communication and advocacy
temporal marker: Post-sessions phase
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Engineer M, serving as lead engineer, decides to express concern to Firm DBA about the outreach practices and session locations after observing the low and unrepresentative participation from Community P. This is a direct professional challenge to a collaborating firm's conduct.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Stakeholder Interest Balancing
type: StakeholderInterestBalancingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Stakeholder Interest Balancing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M faced the need to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders — the City client, Community P residents, Community Q residents, and the public interest in accurate engagement reporting — when responding to Firm DBA's exclusionary engagement practices.
casecontext: Engineer M's position required balancing duties to the City client against obligations to Community P residents and the public interest in genuine community participation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that engagement practices favored Community Q over Community P and that the City's political interests were being prioritized over Community P's welfare
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.448333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Stakeholder Interest Balancing — Graduated Response Firm DBA City
type: StakeholderInterestBalancingConstraintinComplianceAction
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER's recommended course of action reflects the principle that compliance action should be measured and multi-stakeholder in approach, involving Firm DBA in the City meeting rather than bypassing them.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Stakeholder Interest Balancing Constraint in Compliance Action
constraintstatement: Engineer M was required to proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively in taking compliance action against Firm DBA's ethical violations — pursuing direct engagement with Firm DBA first, then involving the City with Firm DBA's knowledge and potential presence — to promote the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible before resorting to external licensure board reporting.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER graduated escalation guidance
sourcetext: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
temporalscope: Throughout the escalation process from discovery of report deficiencies to resolution
textreferences: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
textreferences: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.454024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Subcontractor Code Compliance Confrontation Firm DBA
type: SubcontractorEthicalOversightCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Subcontractor Ethical Oversight Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M possessed the capability to confer immediately with Firm DBA, state specific objections to the materially false and incomplete public engagement report, invoke the code obligations applicable to Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and owners, and require correction of the discrepancies
casecontext: Initial confrontation with Firm DBA after identifying material omissions and false claims in the public engagement report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: BER recommendation that Engineer M confer immediately with Firm DBA, state objections, and involve Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and owners in compliance discussions
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code.
textreferences: As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code.
textreferences: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.454606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Subcontractor Ethical Oversight
type: SubcontractorEthicalOversightCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Subcontractor Ethical Oversight Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer M exercised subcontractor ethical oversight capability by identifying and raising concerns about Firm DBA's engagement practices, though the case raises questions about whether escalation beyond initial concern-raising was required.
casecontext: As lead engineer, Engineer M retained professional responsibility for the overall project and exercised oversight by raising concerns about subcontractor conduct, though further escalation may have been required after Firm DBA's non-responsive reply.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Identification of ethical problems with Firm DBA's engagement design and direct communication of concerns to Firm DBA
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.447273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Unlicensed Practice Reporting — Firm DBA Licensure Board
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 09-10 established that when an engineer discovers potential ethical or licensure violations by another firm and is not satisfied with the explanation, the engineer may be required to report to the state engineering licensure board.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: After exhausting internal escalation pathways with Firm DBA and the City without corrective action, Engineer M was required to consider and potentially fulfill the duty to report Firm DBA's ethical violations to the state engineering licensure board, to prevent similar fraudulent conduct from occurring in future projects.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 09-10
sourcetext: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
temporalscope: After City-level escalation fails to produce corrective action
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.453688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M conferring with Firm DBA (prescribed action) before Engineer M conferring with the City (prescribed action)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA).
from entity text: Engineer M conferring with Firm DBA (prescribed action)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer M conferring with the City (prescribed action)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer M conferring with the City prescribed ac
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M conferring with the City (prescribed action) before Engineer M reporting to state engineering licensure board (prescribed action)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
from entity text: Engineer M conferring with the City (prescribed action)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer M reporting to state engineering licensure board (prescribed action)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer M reporting to state engineering licensur
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M raising concerns to Firm DBA before Firm DBA preparing and submitting misleading report
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Despite Engineer M's concerns, Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held.
from entity text: Engineer M raising concerns to Firm DBA
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Firm DBA preparing and submitting misleading report
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Firm DBA preparing and submitting misleading repor
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Environmental-Justice-Executive-Order-12898
type: EnvironmentalJusticePolicy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: Executive Office of the President; EPA; USDOT
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898) and Related Agency Guidance
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Environmental Justice Policy
sourcetext: Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
textreferences: Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
usedby: Engineer M as basis for professional obligation; City as contracting authority
usedincontext: Provides legal and policy grounding for the obligation to ensure Community P — explicitly described as historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened — receives meaningful and equitable participation in infrastructure decisions affecting them
version: EO 12898 (1994) and subsequent agency implementations
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.439305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Environmental Justice Community Protection — Community P Highway Project
type: EnvironmentalJusticeCommunityProtectionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Community P is explicitly identified as historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened. The highway upgrade runs through Community P. Engagement sessions were held in Community Q, an alternate route area, structurally shifting participation away from the most affected community.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Firm DBA and Engineer M
constraintclass: Environmental Justice Community Protection Constraint
constraintstatement: Both Firm DBA and Engineer M were constrained by federal and state environmental justice obligations to ensure that Community P — explicitly described as historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened — received meaningful and affirmative opportunity to participate in the public engagement process for an infrastructure project that would directly affect their neighborhood, prohibiting engagement designs that structurally disadvantaged Community P relative to Community Q.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898; Federal environmental justice policy; NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1
sourcetext: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
temporalscope: Throughout the planning and public engagement phase of the highway upgrade project
textreferences: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
textreferences: Few Community P members participate, and those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
textreferences: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.449001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Equitable Public Engagement — Firm DBA Community P Sessions
type: EquitablePublicEngagementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm DBA organized meetings during work hours at venues far from Community P and not accessible by public transit, held sessions in Community Q (an alternate route area), provided no written comment mechanism, and held no virtual meetings, structurally excluding Community P from meaningful participation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Equitable Public Engagement Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was constrained to conduct public engagement sessions for the Community P highway project in a manner genuinely accessible to Community P residents, including accessible meeting times, proximate and transit-accessible locations, written comment mechanisms, and virtual participation options, prohibiting engagement designs that structurally excluded the primary affected community.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898; Public Engagement Standard for Infrastructure Projects; BER Community Engagement Precedents
sourcetext: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit.
temporalscope: During the public engagement phase of the highway upgrade planning process
textreferences: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit.
textreferences: Firm DBA's outreach and notices do not provide for a method for community members to submit written comments.
textreferences: No virtual meetings are held to gather feedback from interested persons.
textreferences: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.448806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Excluding Written and Virtual Participation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: public outreach contractor
foreseen unintended effects: Residents with work conflicts, disabilities, or transportation barriers would be entirely excluded
foreseen unintended effects: The absence of written comments would make it easier to omit or mischaracterize Community P input in the final report
foreseen unintended effects: The decision would later be concealed in the report by omitting mention of what was not offered
guided by principle text: Accessibility as a professional standard
guided by principle text: Inclusivity in public engagement
guided by principle text: Objectivity and completeness in process design
guided by principle text: Public welfare over procedural minimalism
has agent: Firm DBA
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Limit the volume and diversity of Community P input by restricting participation to a single, logistically burdensome channel, producing a thinner and more controllable participation record
requires capability text: Accessibility standards knowledge
requires capability text: Public engagement channel design
requires capability text: Virtual meeting facilitation capability
temporal marker: Outreach phase
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Duty of truthfulness in professional practice
violates obligation text: Duty to provide objective professional services not distorted by client political preferences
violates obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare (Code I.1)
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure meaningful public participation in infrastructure decisions affecting underserved communities
within competence: true
comment: Firm DBA decides not to provide written comment submission methods and not to hold virtual meetings, further narrowing participation channels to only those residents able to attend in-person sessions at inaccessible times and locations. This decision compounds the exclusionary effect of the scheduling decision.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Excluding Written and Virtual Participation → Community P Participation Failure
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Firm DBA decides not to provide written comment submission methods and not to hold virtual meetings
cause: Excluding Written and Virtual Participation
counterfactual: Had written or virtual options been available, residents excluded by scheduling and location barriers could still have submitted input, substantially reducing the participation failure
effect: Community P Participation Failure
necessary factors: No compensatory mechanism offered to residents unable to attend in person
necessary factors: Refusal to hold virtual meetings
necessary factors: Removal of written comment submission as a participation channel
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Firm DBA
sufficient factors: Even if in-person sessions had been somewhat accessible, the elimination of written and virtual channels independently ensured that residents with work, mobility, or transportation constraints had no viable path to participation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Fact-Grounded Opinion — Firm DBA Community P Support Claim
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm DBA claimed Community P support based on lack of significant opposition, when the lack of opposition was itself a product of structurally excluding Community P residents from the engagement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was constrained from claiming in its report that Community P supported the project unless that claim was grounded in a public engagement process that actually provided Community P residents with meaningful opportunity to participate, prohibiting the inference of community support from a structurally exclusionary process as if it were an established professional finding.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 21-7; Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the public engagement report
textreferences: Few Community P members participate, and those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.450395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Code Applicability Universal — PE Supervisory Ownership Roles
type: CodeofEthicsUniversalApplicabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm DBA argued or could argue that as a public relations firm providing sub-professional services, the NSPE Code did not apply. The BER rejected this interpretation given PE supervisory and ownership roles.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Code of Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics in its conduct of public engagement and reporting services because licensed professional engineers held supervisory and ownership roles throughout the firm, making the Code applicable regardless of whether the specific services provided were engineering design, calculation, or judgment work.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Preamble; BER Case 98-2; BER Case 60-3 (as revised by current Code)
sourcetext: The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the highway upgrade project engagement
textreferences: It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm's business dealings simply because the services being provided were not engineering from a design, calculation, or engineering judgment perspective but were confined to communication and public relation services.
textreferences: The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership.
textreferences: Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.452589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Dismisses Concerns
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: public outreach contractor
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer M would be compelled to escalate concerns to the City or licensure board
foreseen unintended effects: Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and owners would not be engaged in the ethical review
foreseen unintended effects: The project record would remain distorted and legally and reputationally vulnerable
guided by principle text: Independent professional judgment over client-driven precedent
guided by principle text: Responsiveness to peer ethical concerns
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and objectivity
has agent: Firm DBA
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Maintain current outreach approach without modification, preserve alignment with City instructions, and avoid reopening sessions or revising the participation record
requires capability text: Ethical self-assessment and peer accountability
requires capability text: Knowledge of NSPE Code obligations for outreach and reporting
requires capability text: Willingness to challenge client instructions when they conflict with professional obligations
temporal marker: Post-concern phase
temporal sequence: 7
violates obligation text: Duty not to engage in deceptive professional practices
violates obligation text: Duty to issue truthful and objective reports (Code II.3.b)
violates obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare (Code I.1)
violates obligation text: Obligation to respond in good faith to substantive ethical concerns raised by a peer engineer
within competence: true
comment: Firm DBA decides to reject Engineer M's concerns about outreach practices, citing City instructions and prior project precedent as sufficient justification. This decision forecloses voluntary correction and forces Engineer M toward escalation.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Dismisses Concerns → Concerns Formally Dismissed
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: After Engineer M raises concerns about the inequitable outreach process, Firm DBA's dismissal become
cause: Firm DBA Dismisses Concerns
counterfactual: Had Firm DBA engaged with Engineer M's concerns and initiated corrective action, the formal dismissal event would not have occurred and subsequent escalation would have been unnecessary
effect: Concerns Formally Dismissed
necessary factors: Engineer M having raised concerns formally
necessary factors: Firm DBA citing City instructions as cover for dismissal without independent verification
necessary factors: Firm DBA's active decision to reject those concerns
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Firm DBA
sufficient factors: Firm DBA's authoritative rejection of Engineer M's concerns, combined with the institutional power differential between the coordinating firm and the lead engineer, was sufficient to formalize the dismissal and allow exclusionary practices to continue uncorrected
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Equitable Public Engagement Design Failure
type: EquitablePublicEngagementDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Equitable Public Engagement Design Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm DBA failed to apply equitable public engagement design capability, organizing sessions at inaccessible times and locations, omitting written comment mechanisms, and holding no virtual sessions, thereby systematically excluding Community P.
casecontext: Firm DBA's engagement design systematically excluded the affected community, demonstrating absence or non-application of equitable engagement design competence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Organization of sessions during work hours at venues far from Community P and not accessible by public transit, with no written comment or virtual participation options
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit.
textreferences: Finally, no virtual meetings are held to gather feedback from interested persons.
textreferences: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit.
textreferences: Further, Firm DBA's outreach and notices do not provide for a method for community members to submit written comments.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.446050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Institutional Pressure Resistance Failure
type: InstitutionalPressureResistanceinPublicEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Institutional Pressure Resistance in Public Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm DBA failed to apply institutional pressure resistance capability, acquiescing to City directives to conduct exclusionary engagement sessions and rationalizing compliance by reference to prior project practices.
casecontext: Firm DBA accepted City directives citing economic, political, and social considerations as sufficient justification for engagement practices that excluded the affected community.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Compliance with City instructions to conduct inaccessible sessions and citation of prior project consistency as justification for exclusionary practices
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
textreferences: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
textreferences: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.446833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors Code Universality Application
type: CodeUniversalityApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Code Universality Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The licensed PE supervisors and owners at Firm DBA were required to possess the capability to recognize that the NSPE Code applied to their firm's public relations work by virtue of their supervisory and ownership roles, and to ensure ethical practices were followed accordingly
casecontext: Firm DBA's preparation and submission of the public engagement report for the highway upgrade project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability — Firm DBA's PEs did not prevent the issuance of a materially false and incomplete public engagement report
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership. It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm's business dealings.
textreferences: The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership. It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm's business dealings.
textreferences: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.454334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors Equitable Engagement Oversight
type: EquitablePublicEngagementDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Equitable Public Engagement Design Capability
capabilitystatement: The licensed PE supervisors and owners at Firm DBA bore responsibility for ensuring equitable engagement design but failed to exercise this capability in overseeing the communications department's engagement planning.
casecontext: As PE supervisors of all departments including the communications department, Firm DBA's licensed engineers were responsible for ensuring engagement design met professional standards.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to correct inaccessible session logistics despite supervisory responsibility over all departments
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: It is this department that is directly charged with providing these services on behalf of Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.446204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors Report Accuracy Oversight
type: PublicEngagementReportAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Engagement Report Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: The licensed PE supervisors and owners at Firm DBA bore ultimate responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the public engagement report but failed to exercise this capability before submission.
casecontext: As licensed PE supervisors of all departments, Firm DBA's engineers were responsible for the accuracy of professional deliverables including the public engagement report.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to identify and correct material omissions and misleading characterizations in the engagement report prior to submission
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.446516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors Responsible Charge Engagement
type: ResponsibleChargeActiveEngagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
capabilitystatement: The licensed PE supervisors and owners at Firm DBA failed to maintain active, substantive engagement in the public outreach process, allowing the communications department to conduct exclusionary sessions and produce a misleading report without adequate PE oversight.
casecontext: Firm DBA's licensed engineers in supervisory and ownership roles bore responsible charge obligations over the communications department's professional work product but failed to exercise genuine direction and control.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Failure to actively supervise engagement design and report preparation despite holding supervisory and ownership roles over all departments
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: It is this department that is directly charged with providing these services on behalf of Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.447992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Non-Deception Constraint — Public Engagement Report
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint:Constraintestablishedbyethicscodeprovisions
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm DBA's report omitted where and when sessions were held, that written comments were not accepted, and claimed Community P supported the project without evidence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint): Constraint established by ethics code provisions
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was prohibited from issuing statements that were not objective and truthful, engaging in deceptive acts, misrepresenting facts, or omitting material facts in its public engagement report — including omission of session times, locations, written comment restrictions, and unsupported claims of community support.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on objective and truthful statements, deceptive acts, and misrepresentation of fact
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the public engagement report
textreferences: Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.452732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Procurement Rationalization Resistance Failure
type: ProcurementRationalizationResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm DBA failed to apply rationalization resistance capability, accepting City directives and prior project consistency as sufficient justification for exclusionary engagement practices that violated professional ethics obligations.
casecontext: Firm DBA rationalized non-compliant engagement practices by reference to City direction and institutional precedent, failing to maintain ethical standards in the face of client pressure.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Acceptance of City political and social considerations as justification for exclusionary engagement design, and citation of prior project practices as normalizing the conduct
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
textreferences: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.448186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Public Engagement Report Accuracy Failure
type: PublicEngagementReportAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Engagement Report Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm DBA failed to apply public engagement report accuracy capability, producing a carefully-framed report that omitted material facts about session logistics and falsely claimed Community P support.
casecontext: Firm DBA's report omitted material facts and mischaracterized community participation, demonstrating failure to apply accurate reporting competence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Submission of a report omitting session locations, times, and absence of written comment mechanisms, while claiming Community P support based on low participation from excluded residents
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:16.855676+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Public Relations Subcontractor
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.446364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Public Engagement Report Completeness Accuracy Obligation Individual
type: PublicEngagementReportAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Engagement Report Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm DBA was required to possess the capability to ensure its public engagement report accurately and completely disclosed all material facts — including session locations, times, prohibition on written comments, and the evidentiary basis for any claims of community support — but failed to exercise this capability
casecontext: Firm DBA's preparation and submission of the public engagement report for the highway upgrade project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Firm DBA's failure to include session locations, times, prohibition on written comments, and evidence supporting claimed Community P support in its public engagement report
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:56.606823+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: In BER Case 21-7, the BER found that as a registered professional, that Engineer was obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the organization.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
type: PublicOutreachEngineeringConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles', 'specialty': 'Communications, public relations, and community outreach', 'report_accuracy': 'Misleading — omitted session location, time, and absence of written comment mechanism', 'city_instruction_cited': True}
caseinvolvement: Engaged by Engineer M's firm to coordinate and conduct public engagement sessions for the highway upgrade project; organized sessions at inaccessible times and locations; omitted written comment mechanisms and virtual participation options; prepared a misleading report omitting material details about session accessibility and misrepresenting Community P's level of support.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_instruction', 'target': 'City Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'impact_on', 'target': 'Community P Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder'}
relationships: {'type': 'subcontractor_to', 'target': 'Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
sourcetext: Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to coordinate public outreach
textreferences: Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to coordinate public outreach
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments
textreferences: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.440023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Public Relations Subcontractor
type: PublicRelationsSubcontractorFirm
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Has licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles across all departments', 'service_type': 'Public relations and community engagement communication services', 'code_applicability': 'Subject to NSPE Code of Ethics due to PE supervisory and ownership structure'}
caseinvolvement: Firm DBA provided a public engagement report that omitted material facts (session locations, times, prohibition on written comments) and falsely claimed Community P supported the project without evidence, raising NSPE Code violations regarding truthfulness, deception, and omission of material facts.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'City Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'subcontractor_to', 'target': 'Engineer M'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_review_by', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public Relations Subcontractor Firm
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
textreferences: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
textreferences: Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.443240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance — City Direction Defense Constraint
type: Client-DirectedEthicalViolationNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER anticipated that Firm DBA might take the position that it performed the work under the City's direction and was therefore unwilling to make corrections — a position the BER identified as ethically impermissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was prohibited from using the City's direction as a justification for refusing to correct the materially false and incomplete public engagement report, as client authority does not override the independent ethical obligations of a firm with licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-2
sourcetext: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer M's confrontation of Firm DBA regarding the report deficiencies
textreferences: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.453856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Written Report Completeness — Public Engagement Sessions Material Facts
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 21-7 established that engineers are obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in reports so stakeholders can make informed decisions. The BER applied this precedent to Firm DBA's omissions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was required to include all relevant and pertinent factual information in its public engagement report — including session times, locations, written comment restrictions, and accurate characterization of community support — prohibiting selective omission of material procedural facts that would prevent stakeholders from making informed decisions.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 21-7
sourcetext: In BER Case 21-7, the BER found that as a registered professional, that Engineer was obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the organization.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the public engagement report to the City
textreferences: A report that does not contain relevant information will not help stakeholders make an informed decision and does not protect public safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: In BER Case 21-7, the BER found that as a registered professional, that Engineer was obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the organization.
textreferences: Likewise, in this case, pertinent information was missing from the report.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.453524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA conducting sessions in Community Q overlaps Community P residents attempting to participate
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Few Community P members participate, and those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
from entity text: Firm DBA conducting sessions in Community Q
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Community P residents attempting to participate
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Community P residents attempting to participate
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA organizing sessions at inaccessible times/locations before Engineer M raising concerns to Firm DBA
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
from entity text: Firm DBA organizing sessions at inaccessible times/locations
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer M raising concerns to Firm DBA
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer M raising concerns to Firm DBA
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA submitting misleading report before Engineer M conferring with Firm DBA (prescribed action)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA... Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code.
from entity text: Firm DBA submitting misleading report
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer M conferring with Firm DBA (prescribed action)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer M conferring with Firm DBA prescribed ac
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Historically Underserved Community P Stakeholder
type: HistoricallyUnderservedCommunityStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'misrepresentation': "Falsely claimed to support the project in Firm DBA's report", 'exclusion': 'Excluded by inaccessible session times, locations, and prohibition on written comments'}
caseinvolvement: Community P is the affected community whose support was falsely claimed in Firm DBA's report without evidence, and whose members were excluded from meaningful participation through inaccessible session scheduling and prohibition on written comments.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Firm DBA Public Relations Subcontractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'protected_interest_of', 'target': 'Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder
sourcetext: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
textreferences: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
textreferences: omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.443886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

I.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

I.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

II.1.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

III.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

III.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Incomplete Risk Disclosure — Firm DBA Omission of Engagement Conditions
type: IncompleteRiskDisclosureProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm DBA's report omitted the times and locations of sessions, the accessibility limitations, and the absence of comment mechanisms, all of which were material to evaluating the validity of the claimed community support.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was prohibited from omitting from its public engagement report the material facts about the conditions under which engagement was conducted — including inaccessible meeting times and locations, absence of written comment mechanisms, and absence of virtual participation — as these omissions concealed known risks to the validity of the engagement process and the welfare of Community P.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 21-7; Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the public engagement report
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.450593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Inequitable Public Engagement — Community P Sessions
type: InequitablePublicEngagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the conduct of the sessions through correction of the record or project cancellation
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
stateclass: Inequitable Public Engagement State
subject: The public engagement sessions conducted by Firm DBA for the project affecting Community P
terminatedby: Correction of the public record or re-conduct of equitable engagement sessions
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
textreferences: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
triggeringevent: Sessions held at times and locations that excluded Community P, with written comments not accepted, and results misrepresented as community support
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.445058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Internal Compliance Reporting Escalation — Engineer M Post-Firm DBA Non-Response
type: InternalComplianceReportingEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer M expressed concern to Firm DBA, which was dismissed. The next required step under the internal escalation constraint is to bring the matter to the City, and if the City also fails to act, to escalate externally.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Internal Compliance Reporting Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was constrained to escalate the identified ethical violations by Firm DBA through internal channels — first to the City as the client authority — before pursuing external reporting to regulatory bodies, while simultaneously being prohibited from abandoning escalation if internal reporting was dismissed without corrective action.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Case 88-6; BER Case 09-10
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
temporalscope: After Engineer M's initial concerns to Firm DBA were dismissed and the fraudulent report was submitted
textreferences: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.449952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Lowest-Level Resolution Priority — Engineer M Escalation Pathway
type: Lowest-LevelResolutionPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer M raised concerns with Firm DBA (lowest level), which were dismissed. The constraint requires escalation to the City before external reporting, but given that the City itself directed the violations, external escalation becomes necessary if the City fails to act.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Lowest-Level Resolution Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was constrained to attempt resolution of Firm DBA's ethical violations at the lowest possible organizational level — first with Firm DBA directly, then with the City — before escalating to external regulatory or oversight authorities, while not permitting indefinite deferral of escalation when internal resolution failed.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
temporalscope: Throughout the escalation process following identification of Firm DBA's violations
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.450089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Misleading Report Enters Record
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_M_Oversight_And_Correction_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicInterest_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthfulness_In_Public_Documents_Constraint
causes state change: Official project record is now corrupted with false information; all downstream project decisions risk being built on a fraudulent foundation; Engineer M's obligation to act is now at its highest urgency
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Correct_Or_Supplement_Official_Record
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Consider_Licensure_Board_Report
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Escalate_To_City_If_Unresolved
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Formally_Confront_Firm_DBA
creates obligation: Prevent_Project_Decisions_Based_On_False_Record
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After outreach sessions conclude and Firm DBA produces the report
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: critical
comment: Firm DBA's completed outreach report, omitting session location and timing details and falsely claiming Community P support, becomes part of the official project planning record, creating a false evidentiary foundation for subsequent project decisions.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Misrepresentative Public Record — Firm DBA Report
type: MisrepresentativePublicRecordState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the report through correction or withdrawal
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
stateclass: Misrepresentative Public Record State
subject: The official public engagement report produced by Firm DBA for the City
terminatedby: Report correction or withdrawal, or regulatory intervention
textreferences: A report that does not contain relevant information will not help stakeholders make an informed decision and does not protect public safety, health, and welfare
textreferences: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
textreferences: pertinent information was missing from the report
triggeringevent: Firm DBA submitted a report to the City omitting material procedural facts and affirmatively misrepresenting community support
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.444523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details
usedby: Engineer M in evaluating professional obligations; Firm DBA engineers in supervisory roles
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer M's obligations regarding honest reporting, public welfare, and professional conduct when Firm DBA submits a misleading report and conducts exclusionary public engagement
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.438862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

NSPE-Position-Statement-Public-Welfare
type: NSPEPositionStatement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Position Statements on Engineer Obligations to Public Welfare and Honest Professional Practice
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: NSPE Position Statement
sourcetext: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them
textreferences: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project
usedby: Engineer M in evaluating whether to accept or challenge Firm DBA's report
usedincontext: NSPE position statements on the primacy of public welfare and honest professional communication provide authoritative interpretive guidance for Engineer M's obligations when client instructions conflict with public interest
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.439488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Primary Authority
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:48.308135+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
textreferences: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
textreferences: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
textreferences: The Preamble of the Code states that professional behavior requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA.
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
usedby: BER in analyzing obligations of Firm DBA and Engineer M
usedincontext: Primary normative authority applied to determine whether Firm DBA and Engineer M violated ethical obligations regarding truthful reporting, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omission of material facts; also invoked to establish Engineer M's duty to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare
version: Current revision (post-BER Case 60-3 revision)
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.442184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Non-Deception — Firm DBA Public Engagement Report Submission
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The report claimed Community P support based on lack of opposition, when the lack of opposition was itself a product of structurally excluding Community P residents from meaningful participation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was constrained by the non-deception obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics from submitting a public engagement report that created a false impression of Community P's support for the project by omitting material facts about the structural inaccessibility of the engagement sessions and the absence of comment mechanisms.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; Non-Deception (Constraint) from ethics code provisions
sourcetext: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the public engagement report
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.449283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Producing Misleading Outreach Report
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: public outreach contractor
foreseen unintended effects: Community P residents' documented concerns would be erased from the official record
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer M would be placed in the position of associating with a fraudulent report
foreseen unintended effects: The misleading report could influence infrastructure decisions harming Community P
foreseen unintended effects: The project would be legally and reputationally exposed if the report's omissions were later discovered
guided by principle text: Completeness and accuracy in reporting
guided by principle text: Non-deception as a foundational professional norm
guided by principle text: Public welfare over client political convenience
guided by principle text: Truthfulness and objectivity in professional documents
has agent: Firm DBA
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Create an official project record that appears to document legitimate Community P engagement and support, enabling the City to proceed with the preferred route while suppressing evidence of the outreach's structural exclusions
requires capability text: Accurate and complete technical report writing
requires capability text: Ethical judgment in representing participation data
requires capability text: Willingness to document process limitations and constraints
temporal marker: Report preparation phase
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Duty not to misrepresent community input in public infrastructure planning
violates obligation text: Duty of objectivity and truthfulness in professional reports
violates obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare (Code I.1)
violates obligation text: NSPE Code prohibition on associating with fraudulent or dishonest enterprises (Code II.1.d)
violates obligation text: NSPE Code prohibition on issuing false, misleading, or deceptive statements (Code II.3.b)
violates obligation text: Obligation to accurately represent the scope and limitations of professional work
within competence: true
comment: Firm DBA decides to prepare and issue a report that omits material details about session locations, times, and the absence of written comment options, and affirmatively frames the report to falsely claim Community P support for the project. This is a deliberate act of professional dishonesty in an official project document.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Producing Misleading Outreach Report → Misleading Report Enters Record
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Firm DBA's completed outreach report, omitting session location and timing details and falsely claimi
cause: Producing Misleading Outreach Report
counterfactual: Had the report accurately disclosed session locations, timing, participation barriers, and the actual scope of community input, decision-makers would have had a materially different evidentiary basis and the record integrity would not have been compromised in this manner
effect: Misleading Report Enters Record
necessary factors: Firm DBA's decision to misrepresent the extent or quality of community participation
necessary factors: Firm DBA's decision to omit material details about session locations and timing
necessary factors: The report being formally submitted and accepted into the official project record
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Firm DBA
sufficient factors: The combination of material omissions and affirmative misrepresentations in a formally submitted document was sufficient to corrupt the evidentiary basis of the project record, regardless of whether decision-makers scrutinized the report
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Professional Disassociation — Engineer M Continued Association with Fraudulent Project
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer M faces a professional disassociation decision after Firm DBA submits the fraudulent report and internal escalation has been exhausted, as continued association without action would make Engineer M complicit in the deception.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer M was constrained from continuing to associate with the project in a manner that implicitly endorsed or facilitated the fraudulent public engagement report, as continued association without objection or corrective action would constitute participation in the deception of the City and the public regarding Community P's actual input.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4, Canon 1; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
temporalscope: Upon submission of Firm DBA's fraudulent report and failure of internal escalation to produce corrective action
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.450232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Project Record Integrity Compromised
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_M_Lead_Responsibility_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicInterest_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: Truthfulness_In_Engineering_Practice_Constraint
causes state change: The planning process has lost its legitimacy as a fair public participation exercise; any project decisions made on the basis of this record are built on a false foundation; Engineer M's role as lead engineer makes this Engineer M's professional responsibility to address
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Escalate_Through_Full_Sequence
creates obligation: Engineer_M_Must_Formally_Document_All_Concerns
creates obligation: Halt_Or_Suspend_Reliance_On_False_Record
creates obligation: Initiate_Corrective_Outreach_Process
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After misleading report enters official record; ongoing through planning phase
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: critical
comment: As a systemic outcome of the cumulative actions, biased sessions, excluded participation channels, dismissed concerns, and a false report, the entire official planning record for the highway project affecting Community P is rendered unreliable and ethically tainted.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Public-Engagement-Standard-Infrastructure
type: PublicEngagementStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Federal Highway Administration, state transportation agencies, and professional practice bodies
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Participation Requirements for Transportation and Infrastructure Projects
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Engagement Standard
sourcetext: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit
textreferences: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit
textreferences: Firm DBA's outreach and notices do not provide for a method for community members to submit written comments
textreferences: no virtual meetings are held to gather feedback from interested persons
usedby: Firm DBA (violated), Engineer M (basis for concern)
usedincontext: Establishes minimum requirements for accessible, inclusive public engagement including accessible meeting times and locations, written comment acceptance, and virtual participation options — all of which Firm DBA violated
version: Current federal and state requirements
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.439171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount — Community P Project Proceeding on Fraudulent Basis
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Community P residents who did participate expressed concerns about displacement and business disruption. The fraudulent report claiming Community P support could cause the project to proceed through Community P based on false premises, causing irreversible harm to the community.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was constrained by the foundational engineering obligation to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount from allowing the project to proceed on the basis of a fraudulent public engagement report that misrepresented Community P's input, given that project routing decisions based on that report could result in resident displacement, business disruption, and disproportionate harm to a historically underserved community.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1; NSPE Position Statement on Public Welfare; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: Those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
temporalscope: Upon discovery that Firm DBA's report misrepresented Community P's engagement and input
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
textreferences: Those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.449768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Qualitative-Risk-Assessment-Community-Impact
type: QualitativeRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.74
createdby: Professional engineering and planning practice
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Community Impact and Displacement Risk Assessment Methodology
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:28.135407+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualitative Risk Assessment
sourcetext: those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses
textreferences: Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
textreferences: those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses
usedby: Engineer M in evaluating the significance of suppressed community concerns
usedincontext: A structured methodology for assessing the likelihood and magnitude of harm from infrastructure routing decisions — including resident displacement and business disruption in Community P — provides the analytical basis for evaluating the ethical stakes of the project routing decision
version: Professional practice standard
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.439631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.373641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.373697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Should Engineer M challenge the validity of Firm DBA’s report?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the City's explicit instruction to Firm DBA to conduct public engagement in a manner that excluded Community P residents constitute an independent ethical violation by the City, and does Engineer M have an obligation to report the City's conduct to the licensure board or other authorities beyond simply notifying the City of its ethical obligations?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: At what point does Engineer M's continued association with the project — after raising concerns that were dismissed by both Firm DBA and potentially the City — constitute impermissible association with a fraudulent enterprise, and what specific triggering conditions obligate Engineer M to formally disassociate from the project?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the deliberate routing of public engagement sessions to Community Q — an alternate route community — rather than Community P create a conflict of interest or appearance of bias that Engineer M was independently obligated to identify and disclose to the City before Firm DBA's report was submitted?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does Firm DBA's communications and public relations department's direct execution of the public engagement work — as distinct from its licensed PE supervisors — raise questions about unlicensed practice of engineering or professional services, and should Engineer M have flagged this structural arrangement as a compliance concern independent of the report's substantive deficiencies?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Should Engineer M raise any concerns with the City, as the client, and, if so, how?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: How should Engineer M balance the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including Community P residents — against the competing duty of loyalty to the City as the client that has explicitly directed the flawed engagement process, when fulfilling the public welfare obligation may require acting against the client's stated instructions?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the obligation to resolve ethical disputes at the lowest possible level — first with Firm DBA, then with the City — conflict with the urgency of the public welfare harm being perpetuated by each day the fraudulent report remains in the official project record, and at what point does the graduated escalation principle yield to the paramountcy of immediate public safety disclosure?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle requiring engineers to avoid injuring the professional reputation of others conflict with the obligation to report Firm DBA's ethical violations to the City and the licensure board, and how should Engineer M navigate this tension when the report of violations is both factually grounded and professionally necessary?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does Firm DBA's defense that it was following explicit City instructions create a tension between the obligation to serve the client faithfully and the independent professional obligation not to engage in deceptive acts or issue misleading reports — and does client direction ever constitute a valid ethical defense for a licensed engineering firm that produces a materially incomplete public engagement report?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Are Firm DBA’s actions ethical?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.558487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer M fulfill their categorical duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by raising concerns only with Firm DBA rather than immediately escalating to the City or the state licensure board once the misleading report entered the public record?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the cumulative harm to Community P residents — including potential displacement, loss of business, and permanent infrastructure burden — outweigh any procedural or political benefits the City cited in directing Firm DBA to conduct inequitable public engagement sessions, and does that calculus obligate Engineer M to refuse continued association with the project?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Firm DBA's licensed professional engineers — who held supervisory and ownership roles over the communications department — demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of licensed engineers when they allowed a carefully-framed, materially incomplete report to be submitted to the City without correction?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's universality — binding all engineers regardless of whether their immediate task is technical or communicative — impose an unconditional duty on Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors to ensure the public engagement report is complete and truthful, irrespective of City instructions to the contrary?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer M demonstrate sufficient professional courage and integrity by expressing concern to Firm DBA but continuing to associate with the project after Firm DBA dismissed those concerns and submitted a misleading report, or did continued association compromise Engineer M's character as a trustworthy steward of the public welfare?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.372714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, would Engineer M's reporting of Firm DBA's violations to the state licensure board produce better long-term outcomes for public welfare and professional integrity — including deterrence of future inequitable engagement practices — than limiting escalation to the City alone, even if such reporting risks disrupting the infrastructure project timeline?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.372787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer M had formally objected in writing to the City at the moment Firm DBA dismissed Engineer M's initial verbal concerns — rather than waiting until after the misleading report was submitted — would the public record have remained uncorrupted and would Community P residents have retained a meaningful opportunity to influence the project routing decision?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Firm DBA had held the public engagement sessions in Community P at accessible times and locations, accepted written and virtual comments, and reported results accurately — would the project routing decision have changed, and does the answer to that question itself demonstrate that the inequitable engagement process was outcome-determinative rather than procedurally neutral?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the City had not explicitly instructed Firm DBA to conduct the public engagement sessions in the manner it did, would Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors have independently designed an equitable outreach process, and does the existence of client direction reduce — or entirely eliminate — Firm DBA's independent ethical culpability under the Code?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer M had exercised their authority as lead engineer to refuse to allow Firm DBA's report to be submitted to the City without correction — or had threatened professional disassociation from the project — would that leverage have been sufficient to compel Firm DBA to revise the report before the misleading public record was established?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.559849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T16:36:51.374061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.562999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:20:21.563142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Scheduling Sessions Inaccessibly
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: public outreach contractor
foreseen unintended effects: Community P residents would be effectively excluded from meaningful participation
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer M and other stakeholders might raise objections
foreseen unintended effects: The resulting participation record would misrepresent community sentiment
fulfills obligation text: Nominal procedural compliance with holding sessions (form only)
guided by principle text: Equity in access to civic participation
guided by principle text: Objectivity in professional practice
guided by principle text: Public welfare over client convenience
guided by principle text: Truthfulness in process design
has agent: Firm DBA
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Conduct sessions that satisfy procedural outreach requirements while producing a participation record favorable to Community Q and the alternate route, consistent with City instructions
requires capability text: Accessibility and logistics assessment
requires capability text: Community engagement planning
requires capability text: Demographic analysis of affected populations
temporal marker: Outreach phase
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Duty of equitable treatment of all affected community stakeholders
violates obligation text: Duty to conduct objective and truthful professional services
violates obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (Code I.1)
violates obligation text: Obligation to serve the public interest, not merely client political preferences
within competence: true
comment: Firm DBA deliberately schedules public outreach sessions during work hours at locations inaccessible to Community P and situated in Community Q, the area favoring the alternate route. This structurally suppresses Community P participation while amplifying Community Q's voice.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.455738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Scheduling Sessions Inaccessibly → Community P Participation Failure
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Due to inaccessible scheduling and location choices, few Community P residents are able to participa
cause: Scheduling Sessions Inaccessibly
counterfactual: Had sessions been scheduled outside work hours at accessible locations, Community P residents would have had a meaningful opportunity to participate, making the participation failure unlikely
effect: Community P Participation Failure
necessary factors: Absence of alternative participation channels
necessary factors: Deliberate scheduling during work hours
necessary factors: Selection of locations inaccessible to Community P residents
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Firm DBA
sufficient factors: Combination of work-hour scheduling + inaccessible locations + no virtual or written alternatives created a structurally exclusionary process sufficient to suppress Community P participation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Scope of Practice Boundary — Firm DBA Communications Department
type: ScopeofPractice
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments, including the communications department conducting the public outreach. This means the PE ethical obligations extend to the communications department's work.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Firm DBA Communications Department
constraintclass: Scope of Practice
constraintstatement: The communications and public relations department within Firm DBA, while charged with conducting public outreach, remained bound by the professional ethical obligations of the licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles within Firm DBA, constraining the department from conducting engagement processes that violated those professional obligations even when directed by the client.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 60-3; BER Case 98-2; Certified Public Relations Professional Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Firm DBA has a department within its corporate structure that specializes in communications and public relations.
temporalscope: Throughout the public engagement phase of the project
textreferences: Firm DBA has a department within its corporate structure that specializes in communications and public relations.
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: It is this department that is directly charged with providing these services on behalf of Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.450761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Stakeholder Interest Balancing — Engineer M Escalation and Disassociation Decision
type: StakeholderInterestBalancingConstraintinComplianceAction
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer M must balance obligations to Community P's welfare, the City as client, Firm DBA as subconsultant partner, and the public interest in honest infrastructure planning, while taking measured and appropriate compliance action.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Stakeholder Interest Balancing Constraint in Compliance Action
constraintstatement: Engineer M was constrained to proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively in taking compliance action regarding Firm DBA's violations — including escalation to the City and potential external reporting — with a view to promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible, while not permitting this balancing obligation to indefinitely defer necessary corrective action when internal resolution failed.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 88-6; BER Case 09-10
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
temporalscope: Throughout the escalation and compliance action process following identification of Firm DBA's violations
textreferences: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.450930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

State Engineering Licensure Board
type: PollutionControlAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority': 'State regulatory body with jurisdiction over PE licensure and ethical conduct', 'role_in_case': "Potential recipient of Engineer M's ethics complaint against Firm DBA"}
caseinvolvement: The state engineering licensure board is the appropriate authority to receive a report from Engineer M if Firm DBA and the City fail to correct the ethical violations in the public engagement report, serving as the regulatory backstop to prevent similar situations in the future.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners'}
relationships: {'type': 'report_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Pollution Control Authority
sourcetext: Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board
textreferences: Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board
textreferences: reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.443731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Subconsultant Ethical Compliance Oversight — Engineer M over Firm DBA
type: SubconsultantEthicalComplianceOversightConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer M expressed concern to Firm DBA but did not prevent the implementation of the exclusionary engagement design or the submission of the fraudulent report, despite being the lead engineer on the project with oversight responsibility.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Subconsultant Ethical Compliance Oversight Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was constrained to maintain sufficient oversight of Firm DBA's public engagement work to identify and address ethical violations, and was prohibited from passively accepting Firm DBA's deficient engagement process and fraudulent report on the grounds that Firm DBA bore sole responsibility as the subconsultant.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Canon 1, Section III.2; BER Case 09-10; BER Case 88-6
sourcetext: Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to coordinate public outreach and conduct these sessions.
temporalscope: Throughout the public engagement phase and upon receipt of Firm DBA's report
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to coordinate public outreach and conduct these sessions.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.449625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Written Report Completeness — Firm DBA Public Engagement Report
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm DBA submitted a carefully-framed report omitting where sessions were held, at what time of day, and that written comments were not accepted, while claiming Community P's support for the project based on lack of significant opposition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Firm DBA
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm DBA was constrained to include all relevant and pertinent factual information in its public engagement report submitted to the City, including the times and locations of sessions, the accessibility limitations of those sessions, the absence of written comment mechanisms, and the absence of virtual participation options, prohibiting submission of a report that omitted these material procedural facts.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:54:23.163937+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 21-7; Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the public engagement report to the City
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.449142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616993+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation does not extend to executing client instructions that require professional misconduct — Firm DBA was obligated to refuse or correct the client-directed violations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.614516+00:00
value: Professional ethics obligations are evaluated by the nature of the conduct, not the subjective motivations of those directing it

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616236+00:00
value: Environmental justice considerations reinforce the obligation to correct Firm DBA's report and ensure Community P has genuine access to the engagement process

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.612532+00:00
value: The escalation sequence balances professional relationship respect with the ultimate obligation to protect public welfare through licensing board reporting if lower-level remediation fails

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616725+00:00
value: The escalation sequence balances professional relationship respect with the ultimate obligation to protect public welfare through licensing board reporting if lower-level remediation fails

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.614202+00:00
value: The oversight obligation requires Engineer M to escalate beyond internal expression of concern when the subcontractor's misconduct is not corrected, even at the cost of client relationship friction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.614351+00:00
value: The reporting obligation overrides any residual loyalty to the City or Firm DBA when both have failed to correct ethics violations — the engineer's duty to the profession and the public requires licensing board notification as a last resort

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616835+00:00
value: The escalation sequence balances professional relationship respect with the ultimate obligation to protect public welfare through licensing board reporting if lower-level remediation fails

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616913+00:00
value: The reporting obligation overrides any residual loyalty to the City or Firm DBA when both have failed to correct ethics violations — the engineer's duty to the profession and the public requires licensing board notification as a last resort

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615725+00:00
value: The reporting obligation to the licensing board is not subordinated by the client relationship or by Firm DBA's citation of client instructions as justification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.613887+00:00
value: The reporting obligation to the licensing board is not subordinated by the client relationship or by Firm DBA's citation of client instructions as justification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616619+00:00
value: The prohibition on association with fraudulent enterprise overrides the faithful agent obligation to the City — Engineer M must act to correct or disassociate rather than passively continuing the project association

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615097+00:00
value: Engineer M was prohibited from permitting the use of their name or continuing association with the highway upgrade project if Engineer M believed Firm DBA was engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise through its submission of a materially false and incomplete public engagement report.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.614947+00:00
value: The prohibition on association with fraudulent enterprise overrides the faithful agent obligation to the City — Engineer M must act to correct or disassociate rather than passively continuing the project association

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616531+00:00
value: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role require Engineer M to prioritize public welfare and honesty over client preference for a favorable engagement narrative

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615930+00:00
value: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role require Engineer M to prioritize public welfare and honesty over client preference for a favorable engagement narrative

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615832+00:00
value: The faithful agent notification obligation requires Engineer M to advise the City of the risk even though this may be uncomfortable — the obligation to advise of project failure risks is a component of faithful agency, not a violation of it

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.612782+00:00
value: The reporting obligation overrides any residual loyalty to the City or Firm DBA when both have failed to correct ethics violations — the engineer's duty to the profession and the public requires licensing board notification as a last resort

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.611979+00:00
value: The prohibition on association with fraudulent enterprise overrides the faithful agent obligation to the City — Engineer M must act to correct or disassociate rather than passively continuing the project association

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.611491+00:00
value: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role require Engineer M to prioritize public welfare and honesty over client preference for a favorable engagement narrative

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616352+00:00
value: Environmental justice considerations reinforce rather than conflict with public welfare obligations, requiring Engineer M to escalate concerns about both the engagement process and the falsified report

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615478+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides any client direction to produce incomplete or misleading public engagement reports

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615592+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount requires Engineer M to escalate to the licensing board if Firm DBA and the City fail to correct the deficiencies, even though this may be adverse to the client relationship

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.613429+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount requires Engineer M to escalate to the licensing board if Firm DBA and the City fail to correct the deficiencies, even though this may be adverse to the client relationship

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.613231+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation requires Engineer M to refuse to acquiesce in the falsified engagement report and to escalate concerns to appropriate authorities, overriding deference to client instructions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.612265+00:00
value: The escalation sequence balances professional relationship respect with the ultimate obligation to protect public welfare through licensing board reporting if lower-level remediation fails

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616446+00:00
value: The oversight obligation requires Engineer M to escalate beyond internal expression of concern when the subcontractor's misconduct is not corrected, even at the cost of client relationship friction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615226+00:00
value: Subcontractor oversight obligation requires Engineer M to confront Firm DBA, escalate to the City, and report to the licensing board if necessary — the obligation is not discharged by passive awareness of the violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.615354+00:00
value: Engineer M's expression of concern to Firm DBA was a necessary but insufficient discharge of the oversight obligation — when Firm DBA declined to correct its conduct and submitted a falsified report, Engineer M's oversight obligation required escalation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.613684+00:00
value: Subcontractor oversight obligation requires Engineer M to confront Firm DBA, escalate to the City, and report to the licensing board if necessary — the obligation is not discharged by passive awareness of the violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.612982+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation does not extend to executing client instructions that require professional misconduct — Firm DBA was obligated to refuse or correct the client-directed violations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.614817+00:00
value: The prohibition on falsified public engagement reports is not subject to override by client direction — Firm DBA's position that it performed the work under the City's direction does not excuse the ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616031+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount is the foundational basis for applying the ethics code to Firm DBA — the code's protective purpose would be undermined if PE-supervised firms could escape its requirements by characterizing their work as non-engineering

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.616131+00:00
value: Client instructions to conduct exclusionary engagement do not override the obligation to design genuinely accessible processes for the affected community

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T01:54:53.614050+00:00
value: Client direction is subordinate to professional ethics obligations — Firm DBA's PE supervisors and owners retain independent obligations that cannot be delegated to or overridden by the City

public engagement sessions before Firm DBA preparing and submitting misleading report
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
from entity text: public engagement sessions
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Firm DBA preparing and submitting misleading report
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Firm DBA preparing and submitting misleading repor
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

public engagement sessions (planning phase) before highway infrastructure project construction/upgrade
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: During the planning phase, the City requires a series of public engagement sessions to gather input from the affected community.
from entity text: public engagement sessions (planning phase)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: highway infrastructure project construction/upgrade
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: highway infrastructure project construction upgrad
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.456450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City's citation of economic, political, and social considerations as justification for directing exclusionary public engagement does not render the procedural impropriety of those sessions ethically permissible — the constructive intent

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The exclusion of Community P — a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened community — from accessible public engagement sessions, combined with the false claim of their support, represents a failure to give heightened co

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The highway upgrade project routes through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood, while public engagement sessions are held in Community Q — the alternate route — creating a pattern in whi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M has an obligation under NSPE Code section III.1.b to advise the City that the project will not be successful if it proceeds on the basis of Firm DBA's deficient and misleading public engagement report — the risk of later disclosu

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M, having knowledge of Firm DBA's falsified public engagement report and having failed to obtain correction through direct engagement, bears an obligation to report Firm DBA's conduct to the state engineering licensure board

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Firm DBA and the City fail to correct the deficiencies in the public engagement report, Engineer M must report Firm DBA's conduct to the state engineering licensure board — the reporting obligation is triggered by Engineer M's knowledge

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The public welfare of Community P residents — a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened community — is implicated by both the infrastructure project routing through their neighborhood and the systematic exclusion of the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including Community P — and cannot treat the matter as closed after expressing concern to Firm DBA; Engineer M must escalate through the full confrontat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City's citation of economic, political, and social considerations as justification for directing exclusionary public engagement does not render the resulting ethical violations permissible — the motivations behind the client directive d

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M, as lead engineer of record who engaged Firm DBA as a subcontractor for public engagement services, bears an oversight obligation to ensure Firm DBA's work product complies with professional ethics standards, and must take affirm

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M, as lead engineer of record, became aware of Firm DBA's exclusionary session design and was obligated to take affirmative action beyond expressing concern — including refusing to certify or submit the falsified report and escalat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M's faithful agent obligation to the City as client does not extend to acquiescing in or certifying a falsified public engagement report — the ethical limits of the faithful agent role require Engineer M to refuse to endorse the re

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M must not permit the use of their name or continued association with the highway upgrade project in a manner that lends professional credibility to Firm DBA's fraudulent public engagement report — Engineer M's obligation to challe

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M must follow a structured escalation sequence: first conferring with Firm DBA and its PE supervisors; then, if Firm DBA refuses correction, conferring with the City in Firm DBA's presence or with its knowledge; and finally, if the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's position that it performed the work under the direction of the City does not constitute an ethical justification for producing a misleading and incomplete public engagement report — the City's direction does not authorize Firm DB

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA prepared and submitted a public engagement report that omitted material procedural facts — session locations, times, and the prohibition on written comments — and falsely claimed Community P's support for the project based on manuf

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles at Firm DBA bear responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the public engagement report bearing on their professional work, and violated the honesty p

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's report violated the honesty principle by issuing statements that were not objective and truthful — omitting material facts about session accessibility and falsely claiming Community P support without evidence

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's claim of Community P's support for the project lacks an objective technical or evidentiary basis — it is derived from manufactured absence of opposition resulting from a systematically exclusionary engagement process rather than

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's report failed to meet the objectivity standard by omitting material facts about session locations, times, and comment restrictions, and by making an unsupported claim of community support — the report was structured to support a

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles at Firm DBA bear ultimate professional accountability for the conduct of the communications and public relations department operating under their supervision, including

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's omission of material facts about session locations, times, transit inaccessibility, and the prohibition on written comments from its public engagement report violated the transparency obligation by concealing from the City and ot

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments and in ownership, the NSPE Code applies to Firm DBA's conduct in providing public relations and communication services, notwithstandin

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's public engagement report violated the prohibition on falsified public engagement reports by omitting material facts about session locations, times, and the prohibition on written comments, and by falsely claiming Community P supp

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA designed public engagement sessions at times and locations inaccessible to Community P residents — during work hours, at venues far from the area and not accessible by public transit — and without written comment mechanisms or virt

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER determined that the NSPE Code's paramount canon — holding public safety, health, and welfare above all other considerations — applies to Firm DBA because its PE supervisors and owners bear professional obligations that cannot be sus

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's reliance on City leaders' instructions as justification for conducting exclusionary public engagement sessions and producing an omissive report does not constitute an ethical defense — client instructions to perform work in an et

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M must not permit the use of their name or continued association with the highway upgrade project in a manner that lends professional credibility to Firm DBA's fraudulent public engagement report — Engineer M's obligation to challe

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M has an obligation under NSPE Code section III.1.b to advise the City that the project will not be successful if it proceeds on the basis of Firm DBA's deficient and misleading public engagement report — the risk of later disclosu

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M's faithful agent obligation to the City as client does not extend to acquiescing in or certifying a falsified public engagement report — the ethical limits of the faithful agent role require Engineer M to refuse to endorse the re

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M, as lead engineer of record who engaged Firm DBA as a subcontractor for public engagement services, bears an oversight obligation to ensure Firm DBA's work product complies with professional ethics standards, and must take affirm

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M, as lead engineer of record, became aware of Firm DBA's exclusionary session design and was obligated to take affirmative action beyond expressing concern — including refusing to certify or submit the falsified report and escalat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M must follow a structured escalation sequence: first conferring with Firm DBA and its PE supervisors; then, if Firm DBA refuses correction, conferring with the City in Firm DBA's presence or with its knowledge; and finally, if the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M, having knowledge of Firm DBA's falsified public engagement report and having failed to obtain correction through direct engagement, bears an obligation to report Firm DBA's conduct to the state engineering licensure board

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Firm DBA and the City fail to correct the deficiencies in the public engagement report, Engineer M must report Firm DBA's conduct to the state engineering licensure board — the reporting obligation is triggered by Engineer M's knowledge

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M must follow a structured escalation sequence: first conferring with Firm DBA and its PE supervisors; then, if Firm DBA refuses correction, conferring with the City in Firm DBA's presence or with its knowledge; and finally, if the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The public welfare of Community P residents — a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened community — is implicated by both the infrastructure project routing through their neighborhood and the systematic exclusion of the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including Community P — and cannot treat the matter as closed after expressing concern to Firm DBA; Engineer M must escalate through the full confrontat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The exclusion of Community P — a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened community — from accessible public engagement sessions, combined with the false claim of their support, represents a failure to give heightened co

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City's citation of economic, political, and social considerations as justification for directing exclusionary public engagement does not render the procedural impropriety of those sessions ethically permissible — the constructive intent

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City's citation of economic, political, and social considerations as justification for directing exclusionary public engagement does not render the resulting ethical violations permissible — the motivations behind the client directive d

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA prepared and submitted a public engagement report that omitted material procedural facts — session locations, times, and the prohibition on written comments — and falsely claimed Community P's support for the project based on manuf

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's public engagement report violated the prohibition on falsified public engagement reports by omitting material facts about session locations, times, and the prohibition on written comments, and by falsely claiming Community P supp

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles at Firm DBA bear responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the public engagement report bearing on their professional work, and violated the honesty p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's report violated the honesty principle by issuing statements that were not objective and truthful — omitting material facts about session accessibility and falsely claiming Community P support without evidence

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's claim of Community P's support for the project lacks an objective technical or evidentiary basis — it is derived from manufactured absence of opposition resulting from a systematically exclusionary engagement process rather than

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's report failed to meet the objectivity standard by omitting material facts about session locations, times, and comment restrictions, and by making an unsupported claim of community support — the report was structured to support a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's omission of material facts about session locations, times, transit inaccessibility, and the prohibition on written comments from its public engagement report violated the transparency obligation by concealing from the City and ot

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA designed public engagement sessions at times and locations inaccessible to Community P residents — during work hours, at venues far from the area and not accessible by public transit — and without written comment mechanisms or virt

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER determined that the NSPE Code's paramount canon — holding public safety, health, and welfare above all other considerations — applies to Firm DBA because its PE supervisors and owners bear professional obligations that cannot be sus

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's reliance on City leaders' instructions as justification for conducting exclusionary public engagement sessions and producing an omissive report does not constitute an ethical defense — client instructions to perform work in an et

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA's position that it performed the work under the direction of the City does not constitute an ethical justification for producing a misleading and incomplete public engagement report — the City's direction does not authorize Firm DB

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Because Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments and in ownership, the NSPE Code applies to Firm DBA's conduct in providing public relations and communication services, notwithstandin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles at Firm DBA bear ultimate professional accountability for the conduct of the communications and public relations department operating under their supervision, including

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City was obligated to refrain from directing Firm DBA to produce a false or misleading public engagement report, and upon being informed of the report's deficiencies by Engineer M, to take corrective action rather than acquiescing in th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: If the City decided to take no corrective action after Engineer M's escalation, Engineer M was obligated to consider and potentially fulfill the duty to report Firm DBA's ethical violations to the state engineering licensure board, to preve

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: If Firm DBA refused to correct the discrepancies in its public engagement report, Engineer M was obligated to escalate the matter to the City — with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA — and to present the ethical obligations o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including the historically underserved Community P — by taking affirmative action to address the false and incomplete public engagement report that e

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm DBA was obligated to ensure that its public engagement report accurately and completely disclosed all material facts about the engagement process — including session locations, times, accessibility, and prohibition on written comments

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M was obligated to refrain from permitting the use of their name or continuing professional association with Firm DBA if Engineer M believed Firm DBA was engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise through the submission of a mat

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M was obligated to advise the City that the highway upgrade project would not be successful if it proceeded on the basis of Firm DBA's false and incomplete public engagement report, given the risk that material facts would later em

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer M was obligated to confer immediately with Firm DBA, state objections to the materially false and incomplete public engagement report, express all applicable ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, and ensure that the licensed PE

Engineer M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise — Firm DBA Project
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer M as lead engineer faced the decision of whether continued project association constituted implicit endorsement of Firm DBA's fraudulent reporting conduct.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer M
constraintclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer M was prohibited from permitting the use of their name or continuing association with the highway upgrade project if Engineer M believed Firm DBA was engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise through its submission of a materially false and incomplete public engagement report.
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:59:54.022816+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.d
sourcetext: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer M's discovery of the deficiencies in Firm DBA's public engagement report and throughout the resolution process
textreferences: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.452892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City Client-Directed Procedural Manipulation of Engagement
type: Client-DirectedProceduralManipulationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From City's issuance of instructions to Firm DBA through submission of the outreach report
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them
stateclass: Client-Directed Procedural Manipulation State
subject: City's explicit instruction to Firm DBA regarding the conduct of public engagement sessions
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them
textreferences: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City
triggeringevent: City leaders explicitly instructing Firm DBA to conduct public engagement sessions in a manner designed to limit Community P participation, citing economic, political, and social considerations
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.441178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Client-Directed Procedural Manipulation — City Direction to Firm DBA
type: Client-DirectedProceduralManipulationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the City's direction through correction of the process or project cancellation
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections
stateclass: Client-Directed Procedural Manipulation State
subject: The City's direction to Firm DBA regarding the conduct of the public engagement process
terminatedby: City acknowledges and corrects the procedural manipulation, or regulatory intervention
textreferences: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections
triggeringevent: Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City, suggesting the City directed the deficient engagement process
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.445578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Community P Historically Underserved Community Impact
type: HistoricallyUnderservedCommunityImpactState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From project inception through planning phase and public engagement period
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
stateclass: Historically Underserved Community Impact State
subject: Community P neighborhood and its relationship to the highway upgrade project
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
textreferences: those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses
triggeringevent: Engineer M's retention as lead engineer on a project routed through Community P, a formally characterized historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.440508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Competing Duties Between Client Authority and Public Welfare
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer M's awareness of the inequitable engagement process through the case facts
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer M's professional obligations as lead engineer on the project
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Despite Engineer M's concerns, Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
triggeringevent: Engineer M becoming aware that the City-directed and Firm DBA-executed public engagement process is inequitable and that the resulting report misrepresents Community P's input, while remaining the lead engineer with overall project responsibility
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.441692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Ethical Dilemma Regarding Report Endorsement
type: EthicalDilemma
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of Firm DBA's report through the case facts
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project
stateclass: Ethical Dilemma
subject: Engineer M's decision regarding the misrepresentative public engagement report
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Despite Engineer M's concerns, Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project
triggeringevent: Firm DBA submitting a misrepresentative report claiming Community P support, placing Engineer M in a position of choosing between accepting the report as part of the project record or challenging it at potential cost to the client relationship and project continuity
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.441847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Professional Disassociation Decision
type: ProfessionalDisassociationDecisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer M's recognition of the report's fraudulent character through resolution of the ethical violations or Engineer M's formal action
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
affectedparties: State Engineering Licensure Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer M must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise
stateclass: Professional Disassociation Decision State
subject: Engineer M's continued association with the project given Firm DBA's ethical violations
terminatedby: Firm DBA corrects report, City takes corrective action, Engineer M withdraws, or Engineer M reports to licensure board
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board
textreferences: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful
textreferences: Engineer M must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise
triggeringevent: Engineer M's recognition that continued association with the project implicates them in Firm DBA's fraudulent and dishonest conduct
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.444854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Code Applicability Contested
type: CodeApplicabilityContestedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the initiation of the BER review through the BER's determination that the Code applies to Firm DBA
affectedparties: BER
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The ethical requirements of Firm DBA must be clarified before establishing what actions are required by Engineer M
stateclass: Code Applicability Contested State
subject: Firm DBA's obligation status under the NSPE Code of Ethics
terminatedby: BER determination that the Code applies to Firm DBA because licensed professional engineers hold supervisory and ownership roles
textreferences: It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm's business dealings
textreferences: The ethical requirements of Firm DBA must be clarified before establishing what actions are required by Engineer M
textreferences: Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA
triggeringevent: Question raised about whether NSPE Code applies to a firm providing public relations and communication services rather than engineering design services
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.444048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Fraudulent Public Engagement Report
type: SubconsultantFraudulentReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the deficient report through correction, withdrawal, or regulatory intervention
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
affectedparties: State Engineering Licensure Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
stateclass: Subconsultant Fraudulent Report State
subject: Firm DBA's public engagement report submitted in connection with the infrastructure project affecting Community P
terminatedby: Correction of report discrepancies, or Engineer M's disassociation, or licensure board intervention
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
textreferences: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
triggeringevent: Firm DBA issued a report omitting session locations, times, and written comment restrictions, and affirmatively claiming Community P supported the project without evidentiary basis
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.444262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Inequitable Public Engagement Sessions
type: InequitablePublicEngagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the organization of public engagement sessions through submission of the outreach report
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Community Q
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit
stateclass: Inequitable Public Engagement State
subject: Firm DBA's public outreach process for the highway upgrade project
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit
textreferences: Firm DBA's outreach and notices do not provide for a method for community members to submit written comments
textreferences: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route
textreferences: no virtual meetings are held to gather feedback from interested persons
triggeringevent: Firm DBA organizing sessions at times and locations inaccessible to Community P, without written comment mechanisms or virtual participation options, and holding sessions in Community Q rather than Community P
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.440680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Misrepresentative Public Engagement Report
type: MisrepresentativePublicRecordState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From preparation and submission of the report through the case facts
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
stateclass: Misrepresentative Public Record State
subject: Firm DBA's submitted report on Community P public engagement
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project
triggeringevent: Firm DBA preparing and submitting a report that omits material facts about session timing, location, and lack of written comment mechanisms, while affirmatively claiming Community P support for the project
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.441356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Historically Underserved Community Impact — Community P Project
type: HistoricallyUnderservedCommunityImpactState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the project planning, engagement, and decision-making phases
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
stateclass: Historically Underserved Community Impact State
subject: Community P's status as the primary affected community for the infrastructure project
terminatedby: Project completion with equitable engagement, or project cancellation
textreferences: Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim
textreferences: The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences
triggeringevent: Infrastructure project sited in or routed through Community P, a historically underserved community, with engagement processes that excluded meaningful participation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.445212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Public Safety and Welfare at Risk from Misrepresented Community Input
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of the misrepresentative report through project routing decisions
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Engineer M
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Community P residents' welfare in relation to project routing decisions based on misrepresented public input
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition
textreferences: those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses
triggeringevent: Submission of a report misrepresenting Community P support, creating a false evidentiary basis for routing decisions that could result in displacement of residents and disruption of local businesses in a historically underserved community
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.442014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk — Project Proceeding on Fraudulent Basis
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From identification of the report's fraudulent character through correction or project cancellation
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: General Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The welfare of Community P and the public if the project proceeds based on the fraudulent engagement report
terminatedby: Report corrected, project cancelled, or regulatory intervention
textreferences: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful
textreferences: If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative
textreferences: The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences
triggeringevent: Project risks proceeding to implementation based on a misrepresentative public engagement record that does not reflect actual community input or support
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.445741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance — Firm DBA
type: SubconsultantEthicalNon-ComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer M's identification of the report deficiencies through resolution or disassociation
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report
stateclass: Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance State
subject: Firm DBA's conduct in producing and defending the deficient public engagement report
terminatedby: Firm DBA corrects discrepancies, or Engineer M escalates to City and/or licensure board
textreferences: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report
textreferences: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City
textreferences: The BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA
triggeringevent: Engineer M identified that Firm DBA's report violated professional ethical obligations regarding truthfulness, material omissions, and misrepresentation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.444692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Environmental Justice Consideration - Community P Infrastructure Burden
type: EnvironmentalJusticeConsiderationinInfrastructureEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Highway upgrade routing decision
appliedto: Public engagement session location selection
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The highway upgrade project routes through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood, while public engagement sessions are held in Community Q — the alternate route — creating a pattern in which the community bearing the infrastructure burden is systematically excluded from the planning process
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer M's obligation to consider environmental justice requires recognition that Community P's historical disadvantage makes the combination of infrastructure burden and process exclusion a compounded injustice requiring professional advocacy
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Environmental Justice Consideration in Infrastructure Engineering
sourcetext: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project.
tensionresolution: Environmental justice considerations reinforce rather than conflict with public welfare obligations, requiring Engineer M to escalate concerns about both the engagement process and the falsified report
textreferences: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
textreferences: Many comments are received that support the upgrade through the historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood (Community P) and not through Community Q.
textreferences: The area in which Firm DBA holds the public outreach sessions, Community Q, is an alternate route for the major public infrastructure project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.160480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City Municipal Infrastructure Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation - City Economic and Political Rationale
adheres to principle: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation - Firm DBA City Direction
adheres to principle: Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety - City's Economic Rationale
has obligation: City Municipal Infrastructure Client Non-Direction Fraudulent Report
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'authority': 'Project commissioning, routing decisions, engagement mandate', 'alleged_conduct': 'Directed exclusionary public engagement to favor Community Q routing'}
caseinvolvement: Retained Engineer M as lead engineer for the highway upgrade project; mandated public engagement sessions; city leaders allegedly directed Firm DBA to conduct engagement sessions in an exclusionary manner citing economic, political, and social considerations related to routing the project through Community Q rather than Community P.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_to', 'target': 'Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'directed', 'target': 'Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_accountability_to', 'target': 'Community P Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer
textreferences: City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them
textreferences: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer
textreferences: the City requires a series of public engagement sessions
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.443579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance with Firm DBA
type: SubconsultantEthicalNon-ComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer M's expression of concern to Firm DBA through submission of the outreach report
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Community P residents
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:47:10.670659+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City
stateclass: Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance State
subject: Engineer M's professional relationship with Firm DBA regarding the public engagement process
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Despite Engineer M's concerns, Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City
triggeringevent: Firm DBA dismissing Engineer M's concerns about the public outreach process by citing prior City practice and City instructions, and proceeding to submit a misrepresentative report
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.441513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition - Firm DBA Report Omissions and False Claims
type: FalsifiedPublicEngagementReportProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public engagement report submitted to the City
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA prepared and submitted a public engagement report that omitted material procedural facts — session locations, times, and the prohibition on written comments — and falsely claimed Community P's support for the project based on manufactured absence of opposition rather than genuine participation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The report's careful framing to omit barriers to participation and to characterize manufactured silence as community support constitutes a material misrepresentation of the engagement process that corrupts the planning decision
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
invokedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition
sourcetext: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on falsified reporting admits no balancing — client instructions do not authorize misrepresentation of public engagement results
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.159191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety - City's Economic Rationale
type: GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City instructions regarding public engagement session design and location
balancingwith: Client authority over project delivery
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City's citation of economic, political, and social considerations as justification for directing exclusionary public engagement does not render the procedural impropriety of those sessions ethically permissible — the constructive intent behind the directive does not cure the exclusionary design or the falsified reporting
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Procedural integrity in public engagement processes must be maintained regardless of the client's subjective intent — the City's economic and political motivations do not authorize the systematic exclusion of the affected community from the planning process
invokedby: City Municipal Infrastructure Client
principleclass: Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety
sourcetext: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
tensionresolution: The principle that good intent does not cure procedural impropriety applies with particular force in public engagement processes, where procedural integrity is itself a substantive public welfare requirement
textreferences: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.161574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Honesty - Firm DBA PE Supervisors Responsibility for Accurate Reporting
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public engagement report content and submission
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles at Firm DBA bear responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the public engagement report bearing on their professional work, and violated the honesty principle by allowing or directing a report that omitted material facts and made unsupported claims of community support
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty requires that professional reports accurately represent the facts of the process described, including barriers to participation and the actual basis for conclusions about community support
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
tensionresolution: Honesty obligation is not overridden by client instructions or prior practice — the PE supervisors were obligated to ensure the report accurately described the engagement process
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.159352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations - Firm DBA Report Truthfulness Obligation
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's public engagement report submitted for the highway upgrade project
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA's report violated the honesty principle by issuing statements that were not objective and truthful — omitting material facts about session accessibility and falsely claiming Community P support without evidence
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The honesty principle requires that professional reports issued by PE-supervised firms be truthful and not misleading by omission or false assertion — Firm DBA's report violated this principle in multiple respects
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
invokedby: Firm DBA Public Relations Subcontractor
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
tensionresolution: Honesty obligations are not subject to override by client direction — the City's alleged direction to conduct exclusionary sessions does not authorize false claims of community support
textreferences: Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.163386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Internal Escalation Exhausted — Engineer M Post-City Meeting
type: InternalEscalationExhaustedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which the City declines to act after being informed of the violations through Engineer M's decision on external reporting
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer M
affectedparties: Firm DBA
affectedparties: State Engineering Licensure Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:23.677140+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board
stateclass: Internal Escalation Exhausted State
subject: Engineer M's escalation pathway after Firm DBA and City fail to correct violations
terminatedby: Engineer M reports to state engineering licensure board, or alternative resolution is achieved
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board
textreferences: Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future
triggeringevent: City decides to do nothing after being informed of Firm DBA's ethical violations by Engineer M
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.445385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Objectivity - Firm DBA Report Lacks Objective Basis for Community Support Claim
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public engagement report conclusions regarding community support
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA's claim of Community P's support for the project lacks an objective technical or evidentiary basis — it is derived from manufactured absence of opposition resulting from a systematically exclusionary engagement process rather than from genuine community participation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires that professional conclusions be grounded in genuine evidence — a claim of community support derived from an exclusionary process that prevented the community from participating is not an objective finding
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
invokedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
tensionresolution: Objectivity obligation requires Firm DBA to accurately characterize the basis and limitations of its community support conclusion, including the accessibility barriers that prevented genuine Community P participation
textreferences: Few Community P members participate, and those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.160802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Objectivity - Firm DBA Report Objectivity Obligation
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's public engagement report and its characterization of Community P's position
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA's report failed to meet the objectivity standard by omitting material facts about session locations, times, and comment restrictions, and by making an unsupported claim of community support — the report was structured to support a predetermined conclusion rather than to objectively document the public engagement process
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires that professional reports present facts completely and without selective omission designed to support a client-preferred conclusion — Firm DBA's report violated objectivity by omitting facts that would have revealed the exclusionary nature of the engagement process
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
tensionresolution: Objectivity is not subject to override by client direction — the obligation to issue objective reports applies regardless of client preferences
textreferences: A report that does not contain relevant information will not help stakeholders make an informed decision and does not protect public safety, health, and welfare.
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.163555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Professional Accountability - Firm DBA PE Supervisors Responsibility for Department Conduct
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA communications department conduct on the public engagement project
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles at Firm DBA bear ultimate professional accountability for the conduct of the communications and public relations department operating under their supervision, including the department's exclusionary session design and falsified reporting
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires that PE supervisors at Firm DBA take responsibility for ensuring that all departments under their supervision comply with professional ethics standards, and that they cannot disclaim responsibility for misconduct by citing the department's non-engineering character
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability requires PE supervisors to acknowledge and correct the department's misconduct rather than ratifying it through submission of the falsified report
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as in Firm DBA ownership.
textreferences: It is this department that is directly charged with providing these services on behalf of Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.161096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Transparency - Firm DBA Concealment of Session Accessibility Barriers
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public engagement report submitted to the City
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA's omission of material facts about session locations, times, transit inaccessibility, and the prohibition on written comments from its public engagement report violated the transparency obligation by concealing from the City and other decision-makers the procedural barriers that prevented genuine Community P participation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Transparency requires that professional reports disclose all material procedural facts that would affect a decision-maker's assessment of the report's conclusions — omission of accessibility barriers that explain the low Community P participation rate is a material transparency failure
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
invokedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
tensionresolution: Transparency obligation requires disclosure of the procedural facts regardless of client preference for a favorable narrative
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.160948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Universal Code Applicability - Firm DBA PE Supervision
type: UniversalCodeApplicabilitytoPE-SupervisedFirms
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's public engagement report and public relations services on the highway upgrade project
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Because Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments and in ownership, the NSPE Code applies to Firm DBA's conduct in providing public relations and communication services, notwithstanding that those services are not engineering in the design, calculation, or judgment sense
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The code applies universally to NSPE members and to firms under their supervision — the service-type distinction drawn in BER Case 60-3 under the old code no longer holds under the revised code's preamble requiring adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Universal Code Applicability to PE-Supervised Firms
sourcetext: The Preamble of the Code of states that professional behavior requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA.
tensionresolution: No genuine conflict — the principle establishes that code applicability is determined by PE supervisory role, not service type
textreferences: It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm's business dealings simply because the services being provided were not engineering from a design, calculation, or engineering judgment perspective but were confined to communication and public relation services.
textreferences: The Preamble of the Code of states that professional behavior requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA.
textreferences: The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership.
textreferences: it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.162085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation - City Economic and Political Rationale
type: BenevolentMotiveDoesNotCureEthicalViolation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City instructions regarding public engagement session design
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City's citation of economic, political, and social considerations as justification for directing exclusionary public engagement does not render the resulting ethical violations permissible — the motivations behind the client directive do not cure the professional misconduct of the engineers who implemented it
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Even if the City's motivations were genuinely aimed at beneficial economic or social outcomes, the means employed — exclusionary engagement and falsified reporting — constitute ethical violations that are not cured by the underlying intent
invokedby: City Municipal Infrastructure Client
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
sourcetext: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
tensionresolution: Professional ethics obligations are evaluated by the nature of the conduct, not the subjective motivations of those directing it
textreferences: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.159887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation - Firm DBA City Direction
type: ClientDirectionDoesNotAuthorizeEthicalViolation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's refusal to correct discrepancies on the grounds that work was performed under City direction
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA's position that it performed the work under the direction of the City does not constitute an ethical justification for producing a misleading and incomplete public engagement report — the City's direction does not authorize Firm DBA's PE supervisors and owners to violate their professional ethics obligations
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and is therefore unwilling to make corrections — this position is ethically untenable because client direction does not authorize ethical violations
invokedby: City Municipal Infrastructure Client
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation
sourcetext: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections.
tensionresolution: Client direction is subordinate to professional ethics obligations — Firm DBA's PE supervisors and owners retain independent obligations that cannot be delegated to or overridden by the City
textreferences: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections.
textreferences: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.162442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Environmental Justice Consideration - Community P Exclusion
type: EnvironmentalJusticeConsiderationinInfrastructureEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: The public engagement process for the highway upgrade project affecting Community P
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The exclusion of Community P — a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened community — from accessible public engagement sessions, combined with the false claim of their support, represents a failure to give heightened consideration to the disproportionate burdens that community already bears and a further marginalization of that community in the project planning process
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The environmental justice principle requires engineers to ensure that historically underserved communities are not further marginalized through inaccessible engagement processes — the false claim of Community P's support without evidence compounds the injustice of their exclusion
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Environmental Justice Consideration in Infrastructure Engineering
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted. Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
tensionresolution: Environmental justice considerations reinforce the obligation to correct Firm DBA's report and ensure Community P has genuine access to the engagement process
textreferences: Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.163729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Faithful Agent Project Success Risk Notification - Engineer M City Notification
type: FaithfulAgentNotificationObligationforProjectSuccessRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer M's advisory obligation to the City regarding the project success risk created by Firm DBA's report
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M has an obligation under NSPE Code section III.1.b to advise the City that the project will not be successful if it proceeds on the basis of Firm DBA's deficient and misleading public engagement report — the risk of later disclosure of the report's deficiencies could have very negative consequences for the project and the City
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation encompasses non-technical project failure risks — Engineer M must advise the City that proceeding on a fraudulent public engagement foundation creates regulatory, legal, and reputational risks that threaten project success
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
sourcetext: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent notification obligation requires Engineer M to advise the City of the risk even though this may be uncomfortable — the obligation to advise of project failure risks is a component of faithful agency, not a violation of it
textreferences: Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
textreferences: The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences. If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.163086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition - Firm DBA Report
type: FalsifiedPublicEngagementReportProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's public engagement report submitted in connection with the highway upgrade project
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA's public engagement report violated the prohibition on falsified public engagement reports by omitting material facts about session locations, times, and the prohibition on written comments, and by falsely claiming Community P supported the project without any evidentiary basis
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The report's omissions and false claim of community support constitute violations of the NSPE Code provisions regarding objective and truthful statements, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omission of material facts
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
invokedby: Firm DBA Public Relations Subcontractor
principleclass: Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted. Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on falsified public engagement reports is not subject to override by client direction — Firm DBA's position that it performed the work under the City's direction does not excuse the ethical violation
textreferences: Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.162279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Inclusive Public Engagement Design Obligation - Firm DBA Session Design Failures
type: InclusivePublicEngagementDesignObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public engagement session design and execution
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA designed public engagement sessions at times and locations inaccessible to Community P residents — during work hours, at venues far from the area and not accessible by public transit — and without written comment mechanisms or virtual participation options, systematically excluding the community most affected by the project
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation to design accessible engagement processes required Firm DBA to consider Community P's specific accessibility constraints — work schedules, transit access, geographic distance — and to provide multiple participation channels including written comments and virtual options
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
invokedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Inclusive Public Engagement Design Obligation
sourcetext: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit.
tensionresolution: Client instructions to conduct exclusionary engagement do not override the obligation to design genuinely accessible processes for the affected community
textreferences: Finally, no virtual meetings are held to gather feedback from interested persons.
textreferences: Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit.
textreferences: Further, Firm DBA's outreach and notices do not provide for a method for community members to submit written comments.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.159549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount - Community P Displacement and Exclusion
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Highway upgrade project routing through Community P
appliedto: Public engagement process design and reporting
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The public welfare of Community P residents — a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened community — is implicated by both the infrastructure project routing through their neighborhood and the systematic exclusion of their voices from the mandated public engagement process
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare encompasses not only physical safety but also the procedural right of affected communities to participate meaningfully in infrastructure decisions that may displace residents and disrupt local businesses — and the substantive right not to have that participation falsely characterized
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation requires Engineer M to refuse to acquiesce in the falsified engagement report and to escalate concerns to appropriate authorities, overriding deference to client instructions
textreferences: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
textreferences: Few Community P members participate, and those who do express concerns about the project's potential to displace residents and disrupt local businesses.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.158999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation - City Instructions to Firm DBA
type: Non-AcquiescencetoUnsafeClientDirectives
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City instructions regarding public engagement session design and reporting
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm DBA's reliance on City leaders' instructions as justification for conducting exclusionary public engagement sessions and producing an omissive report does not constitute an ethical defense — client instructions to perform work in an ethically impermissible manner do not authorize compliance
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle that client direction does not authorize ethical violations applies here: Firm DBA's PE supervisors retained an independent obligation to refuse instructions that required falsified reporting and exclusionary engagement design
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
invokedby: Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
sourcetext: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation does not extend to executing client instructions that require professional misconduct — Firm DBA was obligated to refuse or correct the client-directed violations
textreferences: Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
textreferences: Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.159721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting - Engineer M's Obligation to Report Firm DBA
type: MandatoryCompetitorMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's falsified public engagement report and exclusionary session design
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M, having knowledge of Firm DBA's falsified public engagement report and having failed to obtain correction through direct engagement, bears an obligation to report Firm DBA's conduct to the state engineering licensure board
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The reporting obligation applies when Engineer M has direct knowledge of professional misconduct by another engineering firm that has not been corrected after internal engagement — the obligation runs to the profession and the public, not merely to the client
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
tensionresolution: The reporting obligation to the licensing board is not subordinated by the client relationship or by Firm DBA's citation of client instructions as justification
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
textreferences: Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.161270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount - Engineer M Escalation Obligation
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer M's response to Firm DBA's deficient and misleading public engagement report
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including Community P — and cannot treat the matter as closed after expressing concern to Firm DBA; Engineer M must escalate through the full confrontation-client-licensing board sequence to protect the public interest
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: As in BER Case 88-6, where an engineer who failed to escalate beyond an administrator was found to have violated public welfare obligations, Engineer M cannot treat a single expression of concern as discharging the paramount public welfare duty
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount requires Engineer M to escalate to the licensing board if Firm DBA and the City fail to correct the deficiencies, even though this may be adverse to the client relationship
textreferences: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: In BER Case 88-6... The BER found that Engineer A did not fulfill ethical obligations of holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.161913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount - Firm DBA Code Applicability
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's public engagement report omitting material facts and falsely claiming Community P support
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER determined that the NSPE Code's paramount canon — holding public safety, health, and welfare above all other considerations — applies to Firm DBA because its PE supervisors and owners bear professional obligations that cannot be suspended merely because the services rendered are communication and public relations rather than technical engineering
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount is the foundational basis for applying the ethics code to Firm DBA — the code's protective purpose would be undermined if PE-supervised firms could escape its requirements by characterizing their work as non-engineering
invokedby: Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: The most fundamental and primary Canon of the Code is to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides any client direction to produce incomplete or misleading public engagement reports
textreferences: It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm's business dealings simply because the services being provided were not engineering from a design, calculation, or engineering judgment perspective but were confined to communication and public relation services.
textreferences: The most fundamental and primary Canon of the Code is to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.161756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight - Engineer M Oversight of Firm DBA
type: SubcontractorEthicalComplianceOversightEngineerMOversightOfFirmDBA
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer M's oversight responsibility for Firm DBA's public engagement report
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M, as lead engineer of record who engaged Firm DBA as a subcontractor for public engagement services, bears an oversight obligation to ensure Firm DBA's work product complies with professional ethics standards, and must take affirmative action — including confrontation, client escalation, and licensing board reporting — when Firm DBA's report is found to be materially deficient and misleading
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer M's professional responsibility to the client and the public is not discharged by delegation to Firm DBA — the discovery of Firm DBA's ethics violations creates a direct obligation on Engineer M to act
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Obligation
sourcetext: the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code.
tensionresolution: Subcontractor oversight obligation requires Engineer M to confront Firm DBA, escalate to the City, and report to the licensing board if necessary — the obligation is not discharged by passive awareness of the violation
textreferences: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project
textreferences: Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code.
textreferences: the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.162609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits - Engineer M's Bounded Duty to City
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer M's response to City instructions and Firm DBA's falsified report
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M's faithful agent obligation to the City as client does not extend to acquiescing in or certifying a falsified public engagement report — the ethical limits of the faithful agent role require Engineer M to refuse to endorse the report and to escalate concerns when Firm DBA declines to correct its conduct
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation is bounded by professional ethics — Engineer M may not execute the client's preferred narrative about community support when doing so requires certifying a materially false professional report
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
tensionresolution: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role require Engineer M to prioritize public welfare and honesty over client preference for a favorable engagement narrative
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.161414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting - Engineer M Licensing Board Report
type: MandatoryCompetitorMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer M's potential obligation to report Firm DBA to the state engineering licensure board
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: If Firm DBA and the City fail to correct the deficiencies in the public engagement report, Engineer M must report Firm DBA's conduct to the state engineering licensure board — the reporting obligation is triggered by Engineer M's knowledge of Firm DBA's violations of the ethics code, and the fact that Firm DBA is a subcontractor rather than a competitor does not diminish the reporting obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The reporting obligation to the licensing board is the terminal step in the escalation sequence — it is triggered when confrontation with Firm DBA and the City have both failed to produce correction, and it is necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.
tensionresolution: The reporting obligation overrides any residual loyalty to the City or Firm DBA when both have failed to correct ethics violations — the engineer's duty to the profession and the public requires licensing board notification as a last resort
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.163237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Professional Association Disengagement - Engineer M Name Use Prohibition
type: ProfessionalAssociationDisengagementObligationforFraudulentEnterprise
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer M's continued association with the highway upgrade project and Firm DBA's fraudulent report
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M must not permit the use of their name or continued association with the highway upgrade project in a manner that lends professional credibility to Firm DBA's fraudulent public engagement report — Engineer M's obligation to challenge the report and escalate to correction or reporting is grounded in part in the prohibition on associating with dishonest enterprise
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: NSPE Code section II.1.d prohibits engineers from permitting use of their name or associating in business ventures with firms engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise — Firm DBA's production of a materially misleading public engagement report triggers this prohibition
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Professional Association Disengagement Obligation for Fraudulent Enterprise
sourcetext: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on association with fraudulent enterprise overrides the faithful agent obligation to the City — Engineer M must act to correct or disassociate rather than passively continuing the project association
textreferences: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.162940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight - Engineer M's Obligation Regarding Firm DBA
type: SubcontractorEthicalComplianceOversightEngineerMSObligationRegardingFirmDBA
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm DBA's public engagement session design and reporting
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M, as lead engineer of record, became aware of Firm DBA's exclusionary session design and was obligated to take affirmative action beyond expressing concern — including refusing to certify or submit the falsified report and escalating to appropriate authorities when Firm DBA declined to correct its conduct
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:42:27.688870+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer M's expression of concern to Firm DBA was a necessary but insufficient discharge of the oversight obligation — when Firm DBA declined to correct its conduct and submitted a falsified report, Engineer M's oversight obligation required escalation
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
tensionresolution: The oversight obligation requires Engineer M to escalate beyond internal expression of concern when the subcontractor's misconduct is not corrected, even at the cost of client relationship friction
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City.
textreferences: Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to coordinate public outreach and conduct these sessions.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.160646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Firm DBA
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer M Safety Obligation Public Welfare Highway Upgrade Community P
defeasible under: Engineer M Professional Disassociation Decision
defeasible under: Firm DBA Fraudulent Public Engagement Report
casecontext: Firm DBA submitted a public engagement report that omitted material facts about session accessibility and falsely claimed Community P supported the project; Engineer M is the lead engineer of record on the highway upgrade project.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Professional Association Disengagement - Engineer M Name Use Prohibition
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer M (Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer)
obligationclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer M was obligated to refrain from permitting the use of their name or continuing professional association with Firm DBA if Engineer M believed Firm DBA was engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise through the submission of a materially false and incomplete public engagement report.
sourcetext: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer M's discovery of the material omissions and false claims in Firm DBA's report
textreferences: Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.451065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Escalating Confrontation Obligation - Engineer M Escalation Sequence
type: EscalatingConfrontationObligationforSubcontractorEthicsViolations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer M's response to Firm DBA's deficient public engagement report and the City's potential failure to act
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer M must follow a structured escalation sequence: first conferring with Firm DBA and its PE supervisors; then, if Firm DBA refuses correction, conferring with the City in Firm DBA's presence or with its knowledge; and finally, if the City does nothing, reporting Firm DBA to the state engineering licensure board
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-26T16:49:15.821863+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Each escalation step is a necessary predicate to the next — Engineer M cannot skip to licensing board reporting without first exhausting the confrontation and client escalation steps, but also cannot treat an unanswered initial confrontation as a discharged obligation
invokedby: Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
principleclass: Escalating Confrontation Obligation for Subcontractor Ethics Violations
sourcetext: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved. After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
tensionresolution: The escalation sequence balances professional relationship respect with the ultimate obligation to protect public welfare through licensing board reporting if lower-level remediation fails
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.
textreferences: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
textreferences: the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-26T17:17:04.162769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Project Success Notification City Highway Upgrade
type: ProjectSuccessNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer M Safety Obligation Public Welfare Highway Upgrade Community P
defeasible under: Engineer M Competing Duties Between Client Authority and Public Welfare
defeasible under: Engineer M Ethical Dilemma Regarding Report Endorsement
casecontext: Engineer M identified that Firm DBA's public engagement report contained material omissions and false claims; proceeding on this basis risked project failure and public harm if the facts later emerged.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits - Engineer M's Bounded Duty to City
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Project Success Risk Notification - Engineer M City Notification
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer M (Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer)
obligationclass: Project Success Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer M was obligated to advise the City that the highway upgrade project would not be successful if it proceeded on the basis of Firm DBA's false and incomplete public engagement report, given the risk that material facts would later emerge and cause significant negative consequences for the project.
sourcetext: If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative. Again, Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer M's discovery of the deficiencies in Firm DBA's report and before the project advanced further
textreferences: If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative. Again, Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.452096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

City Municipal Infrastructure Client Non-Direction Fraudulent Report
type: EthicalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm DBA Public Engagement Report Completeness Accuracy Highway Upgrade
defeasible under: City Client-Directed Procedural Manipulation of Engagement
defeasible under: Historically Underserved Community Impact — Community P Project
casecontext: City leaders allegedly directed Firm DBA to hold sessions in Community Q rather than Community P; the City is the client with authority to require correction of the public engagement report.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation - City Economic and Political Rationale
derived from principle: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation - Firm DBA City Direction
derived from principle: Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety - City's Economic Rationale
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City (Municipal Infrastructure Client)
obligationclass: Ethical Conduct
obligationstatement: The City was obligated to refrain from directing Firm DBA to produce a false or misleading public engagement report, and upon being informed of the report's deficiencies by Engineer M, to take corrective action rather than acquiescing in the continuation of the misrepresentation.
sourcetext: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections.
temporalscope: Throughout the public engagement process and upon notification by Engineer M of the report's deficiencies
textreferences: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections.
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board.
textreferences: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.452374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Licensure Board Reporting Firm DBA After City Inaction
type: LicensureBoardReportingObligationforProcurementViolations
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance
competes with: Engineer M Safety Obligation Public Welfare Highway Upgrade Community P
defeasible under: Internal Escalation Exhausted — Engineer M Post-City Meeting
prevails over: Engineer M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance
casecontext: After internal escalation to both Firm DBA and the City without corrective response, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions — including material omissions and false claims in the public engagement report — to the state licensure board.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting - Engineer M Licensing Board Report
derived from principle: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting - Engineer M's Obligation to Report Firm DBA
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer M (Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer)
obligationclass: Licensure Board Reporting Obligation for Procurement Violations
obligationstatement: If the City decided to take no corrective action after Engineer M's escalation, Engineer M was obligated to consider and potentially fulfill the duty to report Firm DBA's ethical violations to the state engineering licensure board, to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.
sourcetext: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board. Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.
temporalscope: After the City's decision to take no corrective action following Engineer M's escalation
textreferences: After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA's actions to the state's engineering licensure board. Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state's engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.
textreferences: The BER further found that if Engineer A was not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X's explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.451791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Firm DBA
type: SubcontractorEthicalComplianceOversightObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance
defeasible under: Engineer M Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance with Firm DBA
defeasible under: Firm DBA Misrepresentative Public Engagement Report
defeasible under: Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance — Firm DBA
prevails over: Engineer M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance
casecontext: Firm DBA's public engagement report omitted material facts and made unsupported claims of community support; Engineer M is the lead engineer of record and retained Firm DBA as a subcontractor.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Escalating Confrontation Obligation - Engineer M Escalation Sequence
derived from principle: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight - Engineer M Oversight of Firm DBA
derived from principle: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight - Engineer M's Obligation Regarding Firm DBA
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer M (Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer)
obligationclass: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer M was obligated to confer immediately with Firm DBA, state objections to the materially false and incomplete public engagement report, express all applicable ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, and ensure that the licensed PE supervisors and owners of Firm DBA were involved in those discussions as the parties bearing ultimate responsibility for ethical compliance.
sourcetext: The BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code. The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
temporalscope: Immediately upon Engineer M's discovery of the ethical violations in Firm DBA's report
textreferences: Should Firm DBA acknowledge their ethical obligations after being confronted by Engineer M, a more immediate resolution to the issues may be realized and Firm DBA could correct the discrepancies.
textreferences: The BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code. The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.451219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors and Owners
type: PE-SupervisedPublicRelationsFirmPrincipal
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation - City Instructions to Firm DBA
adheres to principle: Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition - Firm DBA Report
adheres to principle: Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition - Firm DBA Report Omissions and False Claims
adheres to principle: Honesty - Firm DBA PE Supervisors Responsibility for Accurate Reporting
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations - Firm DBA Report Truthfulness Obligation
adheres to principle: Inclusive Public Engagement Design Obligation - Firm DBA Session Design Failures
adheres to principle: Objectivity - Firm DBA Report Lacks Objective Basis for Community Support Claim
adheres to principle: Objectivity - Firm DBA Report Objectivity Obligation
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability - Firm DBA PE Supervisors Responsibility for Department Conduct
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount - Firm DBA Code Applicability
adheres to principle: Transparency - Firm DBA Concealment of Session Accessibility Barriers
adheres to principle: Universal Code Applicability - Firm DBA PE Supervision
has obligation: Firm DBA Public Engagement Report Completeness Accuracy Highway Upgrade
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineers', 'position': 'Supervisory and ownership roles across all departments of Firm DBA'}
caseinvolvement: The licensed professional engineers holding supervisory and ownership roles at Firm DBA bear ultimate responsibility for ensuring the firm's reports comply with the NSPE Code of Ethics and must be involved in discussions with Engineer M to correct report discrepancies.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:48:08.391759+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'accountable_to', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Firm DBA Public Relations Subcontractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_obligation_to', 'target': 'Engineer M'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: PE-Supervised Public Relations Firm Principal
sourcetext: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed
textreferences: Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership
textreferences: The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.443379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance
type: GraduatedEscalationtoClientAfterSubcontractorNon-ComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer M Licensure Board Reporting Firm DBA After City Inaction
competes with: Engineer M Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Firm DBA
defeasible under: Engineer M Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance with Firm DBA
defeasible under: Internal Escalation Exhausted — Engineer M Post-City Meeting
casecontext: Firm DBA may take the position that it performed work under City direction and refuse to make corrections; Engineer M must then escalate to the City before reporting to the licensure board.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Escalating Confrontation Obligation - Engineer M Escalation Sequence
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer M (Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer)
obligationclass: Graduated Escalation to Client After Subcontractor Non-Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: If Firm DBA refused to correct the discrepancies in its public engagement report, Engineer M was obligated to escalate the matter to the City — with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA — and to present the ethical obligations of all parties before proceeding to external regulatory reporting.
sourcetext: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
temporalscope: After Firm DBA's refusal to correct discrepancies, and before or in conjunction with external reporting
textreferences: A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections.
textreferences: Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.451383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
type: LeadInfrastructureProjectEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Environmental Justice Consideration - Community P Exclusion
adheres to principle: Environmental Justice Consideration - Community P Infrastructure Burden
adheres to principle: Escalating Confrontation Obligation - Engineer M Escalation Sequence
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits - Engineer M's Bounded Duty to City
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Project Success Risk Notification - Engineer M City Notification
adheres to principle: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting - Engineer M Licensing Board Report
adheres to principle: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting - Engineer M's Obligation to Report Firm DBA
adheres to principle: Professional Association Disengagement - Engineer M Name Use Prohibition
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount - Community P Displacement and Exclusion
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount - Engineer M Escalation Obligation
adheres to principle: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight - Engineer M Oversight of Firm DBA
adheres to principle: Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight - Engineer M's Obligation Regarding Firm DBA
has obligation: Engineer M Graduated Escalation City After Firm DBA Non-Compliance
has obligation: Engineer M Licensure Board Reporting Firm DBA After City Inaction
has obligation: Engineer M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Firm DBA
has obligation: Engineer M Project Success Notification City Highway Upgrade
has obligation: Engineer M Safety Obligation Public Welfare Highway Upgrade Community P
has obligation: Engineer M Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Firm DBA
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by lead engineer role on public infrastructure)', 'specialty': 'Public infrastructure engineering', 'concern_raised': True, 'escalation_taken': False}
caseinvolvement: Retained by the City as lead engineer on the highway upgrade project; expressed concern to Firm DBA about inaccessible public engagement sessions but did not escalate further when concerns were dismissed; bears responsibility for oversight of Firm DBA's outreach activities and the accuracy of reports submitted to the City.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:46:50.066215+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'City Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'Community P Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder'}
relationships: {'type': 'subcontractor_oversight', 'target': 'Firm DBA Public Outreach Engineering Consultant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project
textreferences: Despite Engineer M's concerns, Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report
textreferences: Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations
textreferences: Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.439821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Engineer M Safety Obligation Public Welfare Highway Upgrade Community P
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer M Licensure Board Reporting Firm DBA After City Inaction
competes with: Engineer M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Firm DBA
competes with: Engineer M Project Success Notification City Highway Upgrade
defeasible under: Community P Historically Underserved Community Impact
defeasible under: Public Safety and Welfare at Risk from Misrepresented Community Input
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk — Project Proceeding on Fraudulent Basis
prevails over: Engineer M Non-Association Fraudulent Enterprise Firm DBA
prevails over: Engineer M Project Success Notification City Highway Upgrade
casecontext: Community P is the historically underserved community through which the highway upgrade is proposed to run; Firm DBA's report excluded them from meaningful participation and falsely claimed their support; Engineer M has a paramount duty to protect public welfare.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Environmental Justice Consideration - Community P Exclusion
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount - Community P Displacement and Exclusion
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount - Engineer M Escalation Obligation
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer M (Lead Infrastructure Project Engineer)
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer M was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including the historically underserved Community P — by taking affirmative action to address the false and incomplete public engagement report that excluded Community P from meaningful participation in the highway upgrade project affecting their neighborhood.
sourcetext: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
temporalscope: Throughout the project, and specifically upon discovery of Community P's exclusion and the false claims in Firm DBA's report
textreferences: As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
textreferences: In BER Case 88-6, Engineer A had the responsibility for a city's waste disposal plant... The BER found that Engineer A did not fulfill ethical obligations of holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.452233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction

Firm DBA Public Engagement Report Completeness Accuracy Highway Upgrade
type: PublicEngagementReportCompletenessandAccuracyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: City Municipal Infrastructure Client Non-Direction Fraudulent Report
defeasible under: Client-Directed Procedural Manipulation — City Direction to Firm DBA
defeasible under: Firm DBA Code Applicability Contested
defeasible under: Firm DBA Inequitable Public Engagement Sessions
prevails over: City Municipal Infrastructure Client Non-Direction Fraudulent Report
casecontext: Firm DBA submitted a public engagement report for the highway upgrade project that omitted session location and time details, failed to disclose that written comments were not accepted, and falsely claimed Community P supported the project without evidence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation - City Instructions to Firm DBA
derived from principle: Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition - Firm DBA Report
derived from principle: Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition - Firm DBA Report Omissions and False Claims
derived from principle: Honesty - Firm DBA PE Supervisors Responsibility for Accurate Reporting
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations - Firm DBA Report Truthfulness Obligation
derived from principle: Inclusive Public Engagement Design Obligation - Firm DBA Session Design Failures
derived from principle: Objectivity - Firm DBA Report Lacks Objective Basis for Community Support Claim
derived from principle: Objectivity - Firm DBA Report Objectivity Obligation
derived from principle: Professional Accountability - Firm DBA PE Supervisors Responsibility for Department Conduct
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount - Firm DBA Code Applicability
derived from principle: Transparency - Firm DBA Concealment of Session Accessibility Barriers
derived from principle: Universal Code Applicability - Firm DBA PE Supervision
discoveredincase: 5
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 5
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T13:58:20.317156+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm DBA (Public Outreach Engineering Consultant / Public Relations Subcontractor)
obligationclass: Public Engagement Report Completeness and Accuracy Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm DBA was obligated to ensure that its public engagement report accurately and completely disclosed all material facts about the engagement process — including session locations, times, accessibility, and prohibition on written comments — and to refrain from claiming Community P supported the project without evidentiary basis.
sourcetext: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted. Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the public engagement report
textreferences: Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted. Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
textreferences: These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact.
textreferences: pertinent information was missing from the report. By this reasoning, Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report
wasattributedto: Case 5 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T14:07:05.451936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 5 Extraction